Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Determination of midsagittal plane for evaluation of facial asymmetry using three-dimensional computed tomography

  • Kim, Tae-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Baik, Jee-Seon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University) ;
  • Park, Joo-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Chae, Hwa-Sung (Section of Orthodontics, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Huh, Kyung-Hoe (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Soon-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2011.03.31
  • Accepted : 2011.05.02
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The aim of the present study was to investigate the disagreement of cephalometric analysis depending on the reference determination of midsagittal plane on three-dimensional computed tomography. Materials and Methods : A total of 102 young women with class III dentofacial deformity were evaluated using three-dimensional computed tomography. The cranial and facial midsagittal planes were defined and the amounts of jaw deviation were calculated. The amounts of jaw deviation were compared with paired t-test (2-tailed) and Bland-Altman plot was drawn. Results : The landmark tracing were reproducible ($r{\ge}.978$). The jaws relative to the cranial midsagittal plane were 10-17 times more significantly deviated than to the facial midsagittal plane (P<.001). Bland-Altman plot demonstrated that the differences between the amounts of jaw deviation from two midsagittal planes were not normally distributed versus the average of the amounts of jaw deviation from two midsagittal planes. Conclusion : The cephalometric analyses of facial asymmetry were significantly inconsistent depending on the reference determination of midsagittal plane. The reference for midsagittal plane should be carefully determined in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis of facial asymmetry of patients with class III dentofacial deformity.

Keywords

References

  1. Finlay LM. Craniometry and cephalometry: a history prior to the advent of radiography. Angle Orthod 1980; 50 : 312-21.
  2. The American Heritage medical dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2008.
  3. Trpkova B, Prasad NG, Lam EW, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. Assessment of facial asymmetries from posteroanterior cephalograms: validity of reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123 : 512-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)57034-7
  4. Suri S, Utreja A, Khandelwal N, Mago SK. Craniofacial computerized tomography analysis of the midface of patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134 : 418-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.065
  5. Lagravere MO, Hansen L, Harzer W, Major PW. Plane orientation for standardization in 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis with computerized tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129 : 601-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.031
  6. Lagravere MO, Major PW. Proposed reference point for 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis with cone-beam computerized tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128 : 657-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.003
  7. Olszewski R, Cosnard G, Macq B, Mahy P, Reychler H. 3D CT-based cephalometric analysis: 3D cephalometric theoretical concept and software. Neuroradiology 2006; 48 : 853-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-006-0140-x
  8. Deguchi T, Sr., Katashiba S, Inami T, Foong KW, Huak CY. Morphologic quantification of the maxilla and the mandible with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 : 218-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.029
  9. Muramatsu A, Nawa H, Kimura M, Yoshida K, Maeda M, Katsumata A, et al. Reproducibility of maxillofacial anatomic landmarks on 3-dimensional computed tomographic images determined with the 95% confidence ellipse method. Angle Orthod 2008; 78 : 396-402. https://doi.org/10.2319/040207-166.1
  10. Fleiss JL, Chilton NW. The measurement of interexaminer agreement on periodontal disease. J Periodontal Res 1983; 18 : 601-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.1983.tb00397.x
  11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 : 307-10.
  12. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126 : 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.023
  13. Pirttiniemi PM. Associations of mandibular and facial asymmetries - a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106 : 191-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70038-9
  14. Galaburda AM, LeMay M, Kemper TL, Geschwind N. Rightleft asymmetrics in the brain. Science 1978; 199 : 852-6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.341314
  15. Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997;12 : 171-6.
  16. Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y. Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod 2002; 72 : 28-35.
  17. Baek SH, Cho IS, Chang YI, Kim MJ. Skeletodental factors affecting chin point deviation in female patients with class III malocclusion and facial asymmetry: a three-dimensional analysis using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104 : 628-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.002
  18. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Dann C 4th. Who seeks surgical-orthodontic treatment? Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1990; 5 : 153-60.
  19. Enlow DH, McNamara JA Jr. The neurocranial basis for facial form and pattern. Angle Orthod 1973; 43 : 256-70.
  20. Friede H. Normal development and growth of the human neurocranium and cranial base. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 15 : 163-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844318109103431
  21. Janson G, de Lima KJ, Woodside DG, Metaxas A, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Class II subdivision malocclusion types and evaluation of their asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131 : 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.031
  22. Kanomi R, Hidaka O, Yamada C, Takada K. Asymmetry in the condylar long axis and first molar rotation. J Dent Res 2004; 83 : 109-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300205
  23. Williamson PC, Major PW, Nebbe B, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in submentovertex cephalometrics. A computerized method for determining the condylar long axis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86 : 360-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90186-X
  24. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33 : 291-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25500850
  25. Waitzman AA, Posnick JC, Armstrong DC, Pron GE. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part II. Normal values and growth trends. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992; 29 : 118-28. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<0118:CSMBOC>2.3.CO;2
  26. Sgouros S, Natarajan K, Hockley AD, Goldin JH, Wake M. Skull base growth in childhood. Pediatr Neurosurg 1999; 31 : 259-68. https://doi.org/10.1159/000028873
  27. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996.
  28. Lee KH, Hwang HS, Curry S, Boyd RL, Norris K, Baumrind S. Effect of cephalometer misalignment on calculations of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132 : 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.039

Cited by

  1. Three-dimensional cone beam computed tomographic image reorientation using soft tissues as reference for facial asymmetry diagnosis vol.84, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/112112-890.1
  2. Three-dimensional Analysis and Evaluation in Orthognathic Surgical Cases with Facial Asymmetry vol.59, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2209/tdcpublication.2017-0008
  3. A Robust and Automatic Method for the Best Symmetry Plane Detection of Craniofacial Skeletons vol.11, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020245
  4. Surgical-orthodontic treatment for class II asymmetry: outcome and influencing factors vol.9, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54317-5
  5. Angle and Distance for Measuring Menton Deviation in Facial Asymmetry Analysis vol.44, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.17779/kaomp.2020.44.3.002
  6. Application of a Novel Automatic Method for Determining the Bilateral Symmetry Midline of the Facial Skeleton Based on Invariant Moments vol.12, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091448
  7. Convolutional Neural Networks and Geometric Moments to Identify the Bilateral Symmetric Midplane in Facial Skeletons from CT Scans vol.10, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10030182