These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls.
    Author: van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM.
    Journal: Eur J Oral Sci; 2009 Jun; 117(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19583759.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study was to evaluate whether measurements performed on conventional frontal radiographs are comparable to measurements performed on three-dimensional (3D) models of human skulls derived from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and if the latter can be used in longitudinal studies. Cone beam computed tomography scans and conventional frontal cephalometric radiographs were made of 40 dry human skulls. From the CBCT scan a 3D model was constructed. Standard cephalometric software was used to identify landmarks and to calculate ratios and angles. The same operator identified 10 landmarks on both types of cephalometric radiographs, and on all images, five times with a time interval of 1 wk. Intra-observer reliability was acceptable for all measurements. There was a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference between measurements performed on conventional frontal radiographs and on 3D CBCT-derived models of the same skull. There was a clinically relevant difference between angular measurements performed on conventional frontal cephalometric radiographs, compared with measurements performed on 3D models constructed from CBCT scans. We therefore recommend that 3D models should not be used for longitudinal research in cases where there are only two-dimensional (2D) records from the past.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]