J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Dec;148(12):913-921. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Oct 16.
The authors conducted a study to compare 2-dimensional (2D) lateral cephalometric radiography (LCR), 2D cone-beam computer tomographic (CBCT)-generated cephalogram and 3-dimensional (3D) CBCT for assessing cephalometric measurements.
The authors took 2D LCR, 2D CBCT-generated cephalogram, and 3D CBCT images involving 60 participants. They obtained 11 angular and 11 linear measurements for all images. They used 1-way analysis of variance and the Fisher least significant difference test for statistical comparisons. The authors used Pearson correlation and Pearson χ test to assess the relationship of these imaging modalities for vertical cephalometric analyses.
Significant differences existed between the 2D cephalograms (LCR and CBCT-generated cephalogram) and the 3D CBCT in 2 angular measurements (maxillary first incisor-nasion (N) point A [A] and mandibular first incisor-N point B (B) (P = .027 and P < .001, respectively) and 5 linear measurements (N menton[Me]/sella gonion [Go], condylion [Co]A, Co gnathion, Go-Me and anterior nasal spine-posterior nasal spine) (P < .004). These measurement values with significant differences were generally greater (approximately 5° for angular measurements and 10 millimeters for linear measurements) on the 3D CBCT scans than on the 2D cephalograms. No significant difference was found between the 2 2D cephalograms (P > .164). No significant difference was found among the 3 imaging modalities for the vertical cephalometric analyses (P > .466).
Significant differences existed between the 2D cephalograms (LCR and CBCT-generated cephalogram) and the 3D CBCT scans in 2 angular and 5 linear measurements. The 2 2D cephalograms were similar for cephalometric measurements. The 3 imaging modalities had no significant difference for the vertical cephalometric analyses. CBCT might not add value for every orthodontic situation.
These results find the values of cephalometric measurements on 3D CBCT scans may be greater than on the conventional LCR for some parameters. The 2D CBCT-generated cephalogram could be an alternative to the conventional LCR for patients whose large-field-of-view CBCT images are already available.
作者进行了一项研究,比较了二维(2D)侧位颅侧射线照相术(LCR)、二维锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)生成的颅像和三维(3D)CBCT 用于评估颅测量值。
作者对 60 名参与者进行了 2D LCR、2D CBCT 生成的颅像和 3D CBCT 成像。他们对所有图像均获得了 11 个角度和 11 个线性测量值。他们使用单向方差分析和 Fisher 最小显著差异检验进行统计比较。作者使用 Pearson 相关和 Pearson χ检验来评估这些成像方式在垂直颅分析中的关系。
2D 颅像(LCR 和 CBCT 生成的颅像)和 3D CBCT 在 2 个角度测量值(上颌切牙-鼻前点(N)点 A[A]和下颌切牙-N 点 B[B](P=0.027 和 P<0.001)和 5 个线性测量值(N 颏下/蝶鞍前下角(Go),髁突(Co)A,Co 下颌角,Go-Me 和前鼻棘-后鼻棘)(P<0.004)之间存在显著差异。这些具有显著差异的测量值在 3D CBCT 扫描上通常大于 2D 颅像(大约 5°用于角度测量值和 10 毫米用于线性测量值)。2 个 2D 颅像之间未发现显著差异(P>0.164)。对于垂直颅分析,3 种成像方式之间无显著差异(P>0.466)。
2D 颅像(LCR 和 CBCT 生成的颅像)和 3D CBCT 扫描在 2 个角度和 5 个线性测量值上存在显著差异。2 个 2D 颅像的颅测量值相似。3 种成像方式对垂直颅分析无显著差异。CBCT 可能并非对每种正畸情况都有价值。
这些结果发现,对于某些参数,3D CBCT 扫描上的颅测量值可能大于传统的 LCR。对于已经有大视野 CBCT 图像的患者,2D CBCT 生成的颅像可以替代传统的 LCR。