Influence of magnification and superimposition of structures on cephalometric diagnosis

Three-Dimensional Analysis of Posterior Mandibular Displacement in Rats

Mandibular protrusion and its treatment is challenging for the orthodontist. The aim of the present research was to identify macroscopic changes in the mandible, based on three-dimensional Cone Beam Computed Tomography analysis. Seventy-two male Wistar rats were divided into two equal groups, experimental (group A) and control (group B). Each consisted of three equal subgroups of 12 rats (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3). Full-cast orthodontic intraoral devices were attached to the maxillary incisors of the experimental animals, and effected functional posterior mandibular displacement. Throughout the experimental period, all animals were fed with mashed food. Animals were sacrificed at 30 days (A1, B1), 60 days (A2, B2) and 90 days (A3, B3). At the 60th day of the experiment, the orthodontic devices were removed from the remaining experimental subgroup A3. Measurements revealed significant differences in the anteroposterior dimensions between experimental and control subgroups. However, the observed changes in the vertical dimensions, Condylion/Go’–Menton and the Intercondylar distance proved insignificant. Posterior mandibular displacement of the mandible in growing rats affects the morphology of the mandible and culminates in the development of a smaller mandible at a grown age.

Diagnostic accuracy of lateral cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography for the assessment of sella turcica bridging

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sella turcica bridging on lateral cephalograms when compared with true sella turcica bridging determined via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using CBCT images from which lateral cephalograms were generated. The study included 185 subjects (118 females and 67 males; age range, 10-30 years; mean age, 16.63 ± 4.20 years). Sella turcica landmarks and related measurements were calculated for both diagnostic modalities and analyzed by 1 examiner. Subjects were classified into 1 of 3 outcome groups: no bridging, partial bridging, and complete bridging. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and receiver operator characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Ten patients were diagnosed as complete bridging on CBCT, whereas 31 patients were diagnosed as complete bridging on lateral cephalogram. Although the lateral cephalogram detected all subjects with complete bridging, it incorrectly classified 12% of subjects. The percent agreement between both diagnostic methods was 55.68%, with a kappa statistic of 0.22 on the right sella turcica and 0.20 on the left sella turcica, indicating fair but statistically significant agreement. The overall accuracy of lateral cephalograms as a diagnostic modality in discriminating between no bridging and partial bridging was good as determined with the area under the curve values of 0.86 and 0.85 for right and left sides, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although lateral cephalograms overestimate patients with complete bridging compared to CBCTs, they are a suitable screening modality for accurately suggesting complete sella turcica bridging and differentiating between patients with no bridging and partial bridging.

Rapid 3D mandibular superimposition for growing patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the precision and reproducibility of a protocol to perform rapid voxel-based superimposition of the mandible in growing patients using CBCT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample comprised two cone-beam computed tomography scans taken at least 1 year apart from each of 24 growing patients. Voxel-based superimposition was performed by two examiners independently. The internal part of the symphysis extending to the first molar was used as the reference. The superimposition process took approximately 5 minutes. Once the mandibles were superimposed, surface models were created and root mean square (RMS) changes were obtained by means of iterative closest point. To evaluate precision, differences in three areas were measured between time point 1 (T1) and time point 2 (T2) superimposed. To evaluate reproducibility between different examiners, the distances between T2 superimposed by each operator were measured in five different areas. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the precision of the superimposition and the interexaminer reproducibility measurements for each case were reported individually.

RESULTS

The superimposition mean error between T1 and T2 for the right and left sides of the mandible and chin were 0.23 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.33 mm, respectively. Interexaminer reproducibility error was ≤0.3 mm in 20 of 24 cases for measurements near the registration area. In the ramus area, two cases had errors >1 mm (1 mm-1.3 mm).

CONCLUSION

The rapid superimposition was precise for assessing dentoalveolar changes and structures close to the registration area. However, evaluation of the condyles and ramus area had limitations and needs improvement.