The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The genial tubercle: A prospective novel landmark for the diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry

  • Lee, Seung-Youp (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Choi, Dong-Soon (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Jang, Insan (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Song, Geun-Su (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Cha, Bong-Kuen (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • Received : 2016.03.16
  • Accepted : 2016.07.02
  • Published : 2017.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Introduction: Identifying menton (Me) on posteroanterior cephalograms and three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images is difficult, because the midpoint of the symphyseal area is not identifiable after the mandibular symphysis fuses at an early age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the identification of the genial tubercle (GT) in patients with mandibular asymmetry and to compare it with that of the traditional landmark, Me. Methods: The samples comprised 20 CBCT images of adults with mandibular asymmetry. Two examiners performed the identifications and measurements. Me and GT were marked, and the anteroposterior, vertical, and transverse distances to the three reference planes were measured on 3D-reconstructed CBCT images. The intra- and inter-examiner reliability of landmark identification of Me and GT were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Results: The Me and GT landmarks showed excellent reliability ($ICC{\geq}0.993$) three-dimensionally. In the transverse evaluation, the ICC values of the GT (range, 0.997-0.999) tended to be slightly higher than those of Me (range, 0.993-0.996). In the Bland-Altman plots for the two separate assessments, Me showed a maximum error of 1.76 mm in the transverse direction, whereas the GT showed a maximum error of 0.96 mm in the 95% limit. Conclusions: Our results suggest that both Me and GT are clinically reliable and equally useful landmarks for the evaluation of mandibular asymmetry on CBCT images.

Keywords

References

  1. Altemus LA. Horizontal and vertical dentofacial relationships in normal and class II division I malocclusion in girls 11-15 years*. Angle Orthod 1955;25:120-37.
  2. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(48)90015-3
  3. Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1961;31:141-56.
  4. Shah SM, Joshi MR. An assessment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod 1978;48:141-8.
  5. Vig PS, Hewitt AB. Asymmetry of the human facial skeleton. Angle Orthod 1975;45:125-9.
  6. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New threedimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:62-73. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.62
  7. Rhee CH, Choi YK, Kim YI, Kim SS, Park SB, Son WS. Correlation between skeletal and dental changes after mandibular setback surgery-first orthodontic treatment: cone-beam computed tomographygenerated half-cephalograms. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:59-65. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.59
  8. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011;81:26-35. https://doi.org/10.2319/032210-166.1
  9. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surfacerendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:129-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn088
  10. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:111-6. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1997)034<0111:COTROC>2.3.CO;2
  11. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Berge SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:300-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00633.x
  12. Jung PK, Lee GC, Moon CH. Comparison of conebeam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:282-8. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.282
  13. de Moraes ME, Hollender LG, Chen CS, Moraes LC, Balducci I. Evaluating craniofacial asymmetry with digital cephalometric images and cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e523-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.10.020
  14. Sievers MM, Larson BE, Gaillard PR, Wey A. Asymmetry assessment using cone beam CT. A Class I and Class II patient comparison. Angle Orthod 2012;82:410-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/041711-271.1
  15. Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH, Kang BC. Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:779-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.021
  16. Becker MJ. Mandibular symphysis (medial suture) closure in modern Homo sapiens: preliminary evidence from archaeological populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 1986;69:499-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330690409
  17. Swennen GRJ, Schutyser FAC, Hausamen JE. Threedimensional cephalometry: a color atlas and manual. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.
  18. Schwarz AM. Lehrgang der Gebissregelung. Band I: Untersuchungsgang (Diagnostik). Wien: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1951.
  19. Schulze C. Lehrbuch der Kieferorthopadie, Band 1. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlags; 1980.
  20. Minich CM, Araujo EA, Behrents RG, Buschang PH, Tanaka OM, Kim KB. Evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Angle Class II subdivision malocclusions wi th cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144:57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.02.026
  21. Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Baik HS. Morphologic relationship between the cranial base and the mandible in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:330-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.024
  22. Nervina JM. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Aust Dent J 2012;57 Suppl 1:95-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01662.x
  23. Lee BR, Kang DK, Son WS, Park SB, Kim SS, Kim YI, et al. The relationship between condyle position, morphology and chin deviation in skeletal Class III patients with facial asymmetry using cone-beam CT. Korean J Orthod 2011;41:87-97. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.2.87
  24. Williams FL, Richtsmeier JT. Comparison of mandibular landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer data. Clin Anat 2003;16:494-500. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.10095
  25. Fuyamada M, Nawa H, Shibata M, Yoshida K, Kise Y, Katsumata A, et al. Reproducibility of landmark identification in the jaw and teeth on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Angle Orthod 2011;81:843-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/010711-5.1
  26. Lieberman DE, Crompton AW. Why fuse the mandibular symphysis? A comparative analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 2000;112:517-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-8644(200008)112:4<517::AID-AJPA7>3.0.CO;2-4
  27. Wang YC, Liao YF, Li HY, Chen YR. Genial tubercle position and dimensions by cone-beam computerized tomography in a Taiwanese sample. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113:e46-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.021
  28. Hueman EM, Noujeim ME, Langlais RP, Prihoda TJ, Miller FR. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in determining the location of the genial tubercle. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:115-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.035
  29. Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1994;64:447-54.
  30. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med 2002;21:1331-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1108

Cited by

  1. Genial tubercles: Morphological study of the controversial anatomical landmark using cone beam computed tomography vol.11, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v11.i7.94
  2. Surgical-orthodontic treatment for class II asymmetry: outcome and influencing factors vol.9, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54317-5
  3. Evaluation of mandibular symmetry and morphology in adult patients with unilateral posterior crossbite: a CBCT study using a surface-to-surface matching technique vol.42, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz106
  4. Analysis of Three-Dimensional Morphological Differences in the Mandible between Skeletal Class I and Class II with CBCT Fixed-Point Measurement Method vol.2021, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9996857
  5. Three-dimensional volumetric evaluation of the different mandibular segments using CBCT in patients affected by juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cross-sectional study vol.22, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-021-00380-6