Digital radiography for the orthodontist

MRI-based cephalometrics: a scoping review of current insights and future perspectives

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to explore the current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a cephalometric tool, summarize the equipment design and methods, and propose recommendations for future research.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases, including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Cochrane Library, using broad search terms. The articles published in any language till June 2022 were considered. Cephalometric studies conducted using the MRI dataset on human participants, phantom or cadaver were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the final eligible articles using the quality assessment score (QAS).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the final assessment. Studies used various methods, including 1.5 T or 3 T MRI systems and 3D or 2D MRI datasets. Among the imaging sequences, T1-weighted, T2-weighted and black bone MR images were used for cephalometric analysis. In addition, the reference standards varied among studies, such as traditional 2D cephalogram, cone-beam CT and phantom measurements. The mean QAS of all the included studies was 79% (± 14.4%). The main limitation of most studies was the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the methods, statistical tools used, and metric outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity and lack of metrological evidence on the effectiveness of MRI-based cephalometric analysis, the preliminary results demonstrated by in vivo and in vitro studies are encouraging. However, future studies exploring MRI sequences specific to cephalometric diagnosis are required for wider adoption of this technique in routine orthodontic practice.

Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the ability to produce comparable superimpositions using hand tracing and digital methods (Dolphin v10). In addition, if the two methods were comparable, we wanted to determine if a difference existed between the best-fit cranial base superimposition and S-N superimpositions using the digital method.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixty-four initial (T(1)) and final (T(2)) cephalometric film radiographs were obtained. Cranial base and regional superimpositions were completed independently for each pair of radiographs by either hand tracing and digital methods. To quantitatively evaluate the differences between the two methods, the hand and digital superimpositions were digitized to obtain x-y coordinates of routine cephalometric landmarks at T(2). Linear distance between multiple corresponding (hand and digital) T(2) cephalometric landmark locations (e.g., A point) were measured and defined as the T(2) landmark distance (T(2) LD). Additionally, 61 patient records were used to compare the digital method for best-fit cranial base superimpositions versus S-N superimpositions. A Friedman test was applied to examine for differences.

RESULTS

The upper 95% confidence limit for the mean of the T(2) LD for hand and digital superimposition methods was <1 mm for all landmarks except maxillary incisor tip and apex. The upper 95% confidence interval for best-fit vs S-N was >1 mm for most landmarks.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the use of superimpositions produced by Dolphin Imaging version 10 and is a necessary step forward toward widespread acceptance of digital superimpositions.

Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of cephalometric measurements obtained with digital tracing software compared with equivalent hand-traced measurements. In the sandwich technique, a storage phosphor plate and a conventional radiographic film are placed in the same cassette and exposed simultaneously. The method eliminates positioning errors and potential differences associated with multiple radiographic exposures that affected previous studies. It was used to ensure the equivalence of the digital images to the hard copy radiographs. Cephalometric measurements instead of landmarks were the focus of this investigation in order to acquire data with direct clinical applications.

METHODS

The sample consisted of digital and analog radiographic images from 47 patients after orthodontic treatment. Nine cephalometric landmarks were identified and 13 measurements calculated by 1 operator, both manually and with digital tracing software. Measurement error was assessed for each method by duplicating measurements of 25 randomly selected radiographs and by using Pearson's correlation coefficient. A paired t test was used to detect differences between the manual and digital methods.

RESULTS

An overall greater variability in the digital cephalometric measurements was found. Differences between the 2 methods for SNA, ANB, S-Go:N-Me, U1/L1, L1-GoGn, and N-ANS:ANS-Me were statistically significant (P < .05). However, only the U1/L1 and S-Go:N-Me measurements showed differences greater than 2 SE (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 tracing methods provide similar clinical results; therefore, efficient digital cephalometric software can be reliably chosen as a routine diagnostic tool. The user-friendly sandwich technique was effective as an option for interoffice communications.

Accuracy of digital panoramic images displayed on monitor, glossy paper, and film for assessment of mandibular third molars

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 3 modalities of digital panoramic radiographs-monitor-displayed images and printed copies on glossy paper and on blue transparent film-for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars.

STUDY DESIGN

164 third molars were recorded with one of 2 digital panoramic systems (Digora and Orthophos Plus) and assessed by 4 observers on 3 radiographic modalities: monitor display, glossy paper, and transparent film. The assessments were compared with surgeons' findings at the time of the operation ("gold standard").

RESULTS

Overall, the observer variation was larger than the variation between methods. A detailed paired analysis revealed some differences between the modalities for some diagnostic categories, but these were few and inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Printed images from the Kodak 1200 ink-jet printer on glossy paper and blue transparent film may be as accurate as the original monitor-displayed digital panoramic images from the Digora and Orthophos Plus systems for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars.

Cephalometric analysis with digital storage phosphor images: extreme low-exposure images with and without postprocessing noise reduction

This study evaluated extreme exposure reduction in cephalography with monitor-displayed DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine, Rosslyn, Va) images. The purposes were to investigate to what extent exposure can be reduced without losing diagnostic information for tracing analysis, whether postprocessing noise reduction could benefit localization of anatomic landmarks in extreme low-exposure images, and the quality of the images. Three images (optimal, extreme low exposure, and noise-reduced extreme low exposure) were obtained from 24 volunteers. Three orthodontists traced 18 landmarks and subjectively judged the quality of the images. Sixteen of the landmarks were well identified on the extreme low-exposure images when they were compared with the optimal images. Apex inferius and apex superius were not well identified. The evaluation of image quality on a visual analogue scale showed that the optimal images were given the highest scores, extreme low-exposure images with postprocessing noise reduction the second highest scores, and extreme low-exposure images the lowest scores. Monitor-based tracing analysis on storage phosphor cephalographic images with a 94% exposure reduction, compared with conventional exposure, can be performed with only 2 of 18 landmarks not well identified. The landmarks were better identified on the low-exposure images with standard postprocessing than on the images with post-processing noise reduction, although the subjective evaluation of the image quality indicated the opposite.