2D / 3D Cone-Beam CT images or conventional radiography: Which is more reliable?

|Carolina Perez Couceiro|Oswaldo de Vasconcellos Vilella|

Objective: To compare the reliability of two different methods used for viewing and identifying cephalometric landmarks, i.e., (a) using conventional cephalometric radiographs, and (b) using 2D and 3D images generated by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Methods: The material consisted of lateral view 2D and 3D images obtained by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography printed on photo paper, and lateral cephalometric radiographs, taken in the same radiology clinic and on the same day, of two patients selected from the archives of the Specialization Program in Orthodontics, at the School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University (UFF). Ten students from the Specialization Program in Orthodontics at UFF identified landmarks on transparent acetate paper and measurements were made of the following cephalometric variables: ANB, FMIA, IMPA, FMA, interincisal angle, 1-NA (mm) and 1-NB (mm). Arithmetic means were then calculated, standard deviations and coefficients of variance of each variable for both patients. Results and Conclusions: The values of the measurements taken from 3D images showed less dispersion, suggesting greater reliability when identifying some cephalometric landmarks. However, since the printed 3D images used in this study did not allow us to view intracranial landmarks, the development of specific software is required before this type of examination can be used in routine orthodontic practice.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Radiography. Orthodontics.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 02:59