Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Royal Dental College, Aarhus, Denmark.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 Mar;34(2):111-6. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1997_034_0111_cotroc_2.3.co_2.
Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities, and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Only a few studies using metallic markers have indicated 3-D CT to be a useful diagnostic method, whereas no studies have evaluated the reliability of the anatomic cephalometric points used in 3-D CT. The aim of our study therefore was to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points from conventional cephalograms and 3-D CT.
Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed-on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance.
Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables.
For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndrome patients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.
传统头影测量是评估牙颌面畸形患者的一种经济且成熟的方法。然而,患有严重畸形尤其是不对称病例的患者,很难通过传统头影测量进行评估。二维和三维计算机断层扫描(CT)都已被提出用于缓解其中一些困难。仅有少数使用金属标记物的研究表明三维CT是一种有用的诊断方法,而尚未有研究评估三维CT中使用的解剖头影测量点的可靠性。因此,我们研究的目的是比较传统头影测量片和三维CT中解剖头影测量点的可靠性。
对九个人类干燥颅骨进行CT扫描。此外,还获取了标准的侧位和正位头影测量片。对CT扫描进行三维图像重建,两名研究人员将头影测量点记录为x、y和z坐标。对头影测量片进行计算机化头影测量分析。计算每种方法的个体内和个体间差异,并进行统计学显著性检验。
侧位头影测量片测量结果比三维CT更可靠,大多数点的观察者间差异小于1毫米,而三维CT约为2毫米。侧位头影测量分析还显示,六个变量的观察者间差异明显更小。然而,当将三维CT与正位头影测量片比较时,这种差异不太明显。正位头影测量分析显示,在所研究的三个变量中,观察者间差异明显更小。
对于标准的侧位和正位头影测量点,没有证据表明在正常颅骨中三维CT比传统头影测量方法更可靠,三维CT头影测量的优势在于严重不对称颅面综合征患者,因为已知在这些病例中传统头影测量较差。