Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study

  • Durao, Ana Paula Reis (Department of Dental Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Morosolli, Aline (Department of Surgery, Dentistry School, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul) ;
  • Pittayapat, Pisha (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Bolstad, Napat (Department of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Health Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway) ;
  • Ferreira, Afonso P. (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Jacobs, Reinhilde (Oral Imaging Center, OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven)
  • Received : 2015.04.23
  • Accepted : 2015.05.27
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim this study was to compare the accuracy of orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists in identifying 17 commonly used cephalometric landmarks, and to determine the extent of variability associated with each of those landmarks. Materials and Methods: Twenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by two groups of dental specialists, and 17 cephalometric landmarks were identified. The x and y coordinates of each landmark were recorded. The mean value for each landmark was considered the best estimate and used as the standard. Variation in measurements of the distance between landmarks and measurements of the angles associated with certain landmarks was also assessed by a subset of two observers, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were evaluated. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were excellent for intraobserver agreement, but only good for interobserver agreement. The least reliable landmark for orthodontists was the gnathion (Gn) point (standard deviation [SD], 5.92 mm), while the orbitale (Or) was the least reliable landmark (SD, 4.41 mm) for dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Furthermore, the condylion (Co)-Gn plane was the least consistent (SD, 4.43 mm). Conclusion: We established that some landmarks were not as reproducible as others, both horizontally and vertically. The most consistently identified landmark in both groups was the lower incisor border, while the least reliable points were Co, Gn, Or, and the anterior nasal spine. Overall, a lower level of reproducibility in the identification of cephalometric landmarks was observed among orthodontists.

Keywords

References

  1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1: 45-66.
  2. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 111-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
  3. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW, Yao CC, Chang HF. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 301-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/85147715
  4. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 569-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.5.569
  5. Miloro M, Borba AM, Ribeiro-Junior O, Naclerio-Homem MG, Jungner M. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 445-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.007
  6. Tng TT, Chan TC, Hagg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 110-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.2.110
  7. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974; 1: 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.1.3.95
  8. Kvam E, Krogstad O. Variability in tracings of lateral head plates for diagnostic orthodontic purposes. A methodologic study. Acta Odontol Scand 1969; 27: 359-69. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356909040415
  9. Lau PY, Cooke MS, Hagg U. Effect of training and experience on cephalometric measurement errors on surgical patients. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 204-13.
  10. da Silveira HL, Silveira HE. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements made by three radiology clinics. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 394-9.
  11. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006.
  12. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
  13. Ricketts RM. Analysis - the Interim. Angle Orthod 1970; 40: 129-37.
  14. McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 449-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90352-X
  15. McClure SR, Sadowsky PL, Ferreira A, Jacobson A. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.002
  16. Shaheed S, Iftikhar A, Rasool G, Bashir U. Accuracy of linear cephalometric measurements with scanned lateral cephalograms. Pak Oral Dental J 2011; 31: 68-72.
  17. Murali RV, Sukumar MR, Tajir TF, Rajalingam S. Comparative study of manual cephalometric tracing and computerized cephalometric tracing in digital lateral cephalogram for accuracy and reliability of landmarks. Indian J Multidiscip Dent 2011; 1: 126-34.
  18. Durao AR, Pittayapat P, Rockenbach MI, Olszewski R, Ng S, Ferreira AP, et al. Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review. Prog Orthod 2013; 14: 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-31
  19. Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 149-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/8.3.149
  20. Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 262-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/81889955
  21. Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhauser-Andresen S, Hirschfelder U, Hofmann E. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 72: 261-78.22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5
  22. Lagravere MO, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey JP, Heo G, et al. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 598-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.018

Cited by

  1. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms vol.6, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33581
  2. Tolerance of image enhancement brightness and contrast in lateral cephalometric digital radiography for Steiner analysis vol.884, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/884/1/012045
  3. Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination : Part 1: The development of widely applicable equations vol.79, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0129-1
  4. Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis vol.20, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2645
  5. Sella Turcica Area and Location of Point Sella in Cephalograms Acquired with Simulated Patient Head Movements vol.22, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3056
  6. Effects of scanning parameters reduction in dental radiographs on image quality and diagnostic performance: A randomised controlled trial vol.48, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520971641
  7. The relation of cephalometric features to internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies vol.24, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12454