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 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls.
    Author: van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM.
    Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Feb; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether measurements on conventional cephalometric radiographs are comparable with 3D measurements on 3D models of human skulls, derived from cone beam CT (CBCT) data. A CBCT scan and a conventional cephalometric radiograph were made of 40 dry skulls. Standard cephalometric software was used to identify landmarks on both the 2D images and the 3D models. The same operator identified 17 landmarks on the cephalometric radiographs and on the 3D models. All images and 3D models were traced five times with a time-interval of 1 week and the mean value of repeated measurements was used for further statistical analysis. Distances and angles were calculated. Intra-observer reliability was good for all measurements. The reproducibility of the measurements on the conventional cephalometric radiographs was higher compared with the reproducibility of measurements on the 3D models. For a few measurements a clinically relevant difference between measurements on conventional cephalometric radiographs and 3D models was found. Measurements on conventional cephalometric radiographs can differ significantly from measurements on 3D models of the same skull. The authors recommend that 3D tracings for longitudinal research are not used in cases were there are only 2D records from the past.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]