J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Dec;148(12):913-921. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Oct 16.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: 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.
背景: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。
方法: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。
结果: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)。
结论: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。
实用意义: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。
J Am Dent Assoc. 2017-10-16
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007-10
Angle Orthod. 2008-9
Odontology. 2025-3-10
Clin Oral Investig. 2024-11-1
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023-7