The Accuracy of Lateral Cephalogram in Representing the Anterior Maxillary Dentoalveolar Position
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Subject Selection
2.2. Lateral Cephalograms
2.3. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)
2.4. Statistical Analyses
2.5. Sample Size Calculation
2.6. Quality Control
3. Results
3.1. Comparisons between Labial Ceph, U1CT, and U2CT
3.2. Comparisons between Palatal Ceph, U1CT, and U2CT
3.3. Comparisons of Root Diameters and Total Root-Bone Thickness between Ceph, U1CT, and U2CT
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Durão, A.R.; Pittayapat, P.; Rockenbach, I.B.; Olszewski, R.; Ng, S.; Ferreira, A.P.; Jacobs, R. Validity of 2D Lateral Cephalometry in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review. Prog. Orthod. 2013, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hong, S.Y.; Shin, J.W.; Hong, C.; Chan, V.; Baik, U.B.; Kim, Y.H.; Chae, H.S. Alveolar Bone Remodeling during Maxillary Incisor Intrusion and Retraction. Prog. Orthod. 2019, 20, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Handelman, C.S. The Anterior Alveolus: Its Importance in Limiting Orthodontic Treatment and Its Influence on the Occurrence of Iatrogenic Sequelae. Angle Orthod. 1996, 66, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sarver, D.M. Principles of Cosmetic Dentistry in Orthodontics: Part 1. Shape and Proportionality of Anterior Teeth. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2004, 126, 749–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garib, D.G.; Yatabe, M.S.; Ozawa, T.O.; da Silva Filho, O.G. Alveolar Bone Morphology under the Perspective of the Computed Tomography: Defining the Biological Limits of Tooth Movement. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2010, 15, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kapila, S.D.; Nervina, J.M. CBCT in Orthodontics: Assessment of Treatment Outcomes and Indications for Its Use. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2015, 44, 20140282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chanmanee, P.; Charoemratrote, C. Maxillary Bone Characteristics between Thick and Thin Gingival Biotypes with Dentoalveolar Protrusion. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2019, 8, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Hwang, S.; Jang, W.; Choi, Y.J.; Chung, C.J.; Kim, K.H. Assessment of Lower Incisor Alveolar Bone Width Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images in Skeletal Class Iii Adults of Different Vertical Patterns. Korean J. Orthod. 2018, 48, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.-L.; Liu, F.; Sun, H.J.; Lv, P.; Cao, Y.M.; Yu, M.; Yue, Y. Alveolar Bone Thickness around Maxillary Central Incisors of Different Inclination Assessed with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Korean J. Orthod. 2015, 45, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahn, J.-H.; Bae, K.-H.; Park, Y.-J.; Hong, R.-K.; Nam, J.-H.; Kim, M.-J. Assessment of Antero-Posterior Skeletal Relationships in Adult Korean Patients in the Natural Head Position and Centric Relation. Korean J. Orthod. 2010, 40, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sarikaya, S.; Haydar, B.; Ciğer, S.; Ariyürek, M. Changes in Alveolar Bone Thickness Due to Retraction of Anterior Teeth. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2002, 122, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, C.S.; Park, J.K.; Kim, H.; Han, S.S.; Jeong, H.G.; Park, H. Comparison of Conventional Lateral Cephalograms with Corresponding CBCT Radiographs. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2012, 42, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rino Neto, J.; de Paiva, J.B.; Queiroz, G.V.; Attizzani, M.F.; Miasiro Junior, H. Evaluation of Radiographic Magnification in Lateral Cephalograms Obtained with Different X-Ray Devices: Experimental Study in Human Dry Skull. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2013, 18, 17.e1–17.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chien, P.C.; Parks, E.T.; Eraso, F.; Hartsfield, J.K.; Roberts, W.E.; 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, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Becker, W. Alveolar Bone Anatomic Profiles as Measured from Dry Skulls Clinical Ramifications. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1997, 24, 727–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salonen, L.W.E.; Frithiof, L.; Wouters, F.R.; Helldén, L.B. Marginal Alveolar Bone Height in an Adult Swedish Population: A Radiographic Cross-sectional Epidemiologic Study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1991, 18, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elnagar, M.H.; Handelman, C.S.; Lippincott, J.S.; Kim, M.R.; BeGole, E. Alveolar Cortical Plate Changes Associated with Incisor Retraction and Its Influence on the Limits of Orthodontic Tooth Movement. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2021, 24, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soumya, P.; Chappidi, V.; Koppolu, P.; Pathakota, K.R. Evaluation of Facial and Palatal Alveolar Bone Thickness and Sagittal Root Position of Maxillary Anterior Teeth on Cone Beam Computerized Tomograms. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 24, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Cozzani, M.; Sadri, D.; Nucci, L.; Jamilian, P.; Pirhadirad, A.P.; Jamilian, A. The effect of Alexander, Gianelly, Roth, and MBT bracket systems on anterior retraction: A 3-dimensional finite element study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 1351–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Von Böhl, M.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M. Hyalinization during Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review on Tissue Reactions. Eur. J. Orthod. 2009, 31, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlbrecht, C.A.; de Oliveira Ruellas, A.C.; Paniagua, B.; Schilling, J.A.; McNamara, J.A.; Cevidanes, L.H.S. Three-Dimensional Characterization of Root Morphology for Maxillary Incisors. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0178728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.L.; Kim, H.J.; Son, M.K.; Chung, C.H. Anthropometric Analysis of Maxillary Anterior Buccal Bone of Korean Adults Using Cone-Beam CT. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2010, 2, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Helal, N.M.; Basri, O.A.; Baeshen, H.A. Significance of Cephalometric Radiograph in Orthodontic Treatment Plan Decision. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2019, 20, 789–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giudice, A.L.; Rustico, L.; Caprioglio, A.; Migliorati, M.; Nucera, R. Evaluation of condylar cortical bone thickness in patient groups with different vertical facial dimensions using cone-beam computed tomography. Odontology 2020, 108, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giudice, A.L.; Caccianiga, G.; Crimi, S.; Cavallini, C.; Leonardi, R. Frequency and type of ponticulus posticus in a longitudinal sample of nonorthodontically treated patients: Relationship with gender, age, skeletal maturity, and skeletal malocclusion. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2018, 126, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Maxillary Teeth (n = 64) | Labial Side | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ceph | U1CT | U2CT | ANOVA p-Value | Differences | |||
(C) | (U1) | (U2) | C-U1 | C-U2 | U1-U2 | ||
1) Alveolar bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 0.81 ± 0.15 | 0.61 ± 0.12 | 0.57 ± 0.09 | <0.001 | 0.20 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.04 |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 0.95 ± 0.21 | 0.64 ± 0.11 | 0.59 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.31 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.05 |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 1.32 ± 0.19 | 0.68 ± 0.11 | 0.65 ± 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.64 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.03 |
2) Alveolar bone height (CEJ to alveolar crest) | 1.38 ± 0.27 | 1.61 ± 0.20 | 1.65 ± 0.17 | <0.001 | 0.23 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.04 |
3) Cortical bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 0.81 ± 0.15 | 0.61 ± 0.12 | 0.57 ± 0.09 | <0.001 | 0.20 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.04 |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 0.95 ± 0.21 | 0.64 ± 0.11 | 0.59 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.31 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.05 |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 1.32 ± 0.19 | 0.68 ± 0.11 | 0.65 ± 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.64 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.03 |
4) Cortical bone height | 10.51 ± 1.07 | 10.16 ± 0.96 | 10.04 ± 0.95 | 0.051 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.12 |
5) Cancellous bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | - | - | - | N/A | - | - | - |
6 mm apical to CEJ | - | - | - | N/A | - | - | - |
9 mm apical to CEJ | - | - | - | N/A | - | - | - |
Maxillary Teeth (n = 64) | Palatal Side | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ceph | U1CT | U2CT | ANOVA p-Value | Differences | |||
(C) | (U1) | (U2) | C-U1 | C-U2 | U1-U2 | ||
1) Alveolar bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 1.53 ± 0.44 | 1.12 ± 0.38 | 1.05 ± 0.32 | <0.001 | 0.41 ** | 0.48 ** | 0.07 |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 2.24 ± 0.41 | 1.71 ± 0.39 | 1.66 ± 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.53 ** | 0.58 ** | 0.05 |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 3.09 ± 0.42 | 2.55 ± 0.39 | 2.49 ± 0.37 | <0.001 | 0.54 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.06 |
2) Alveolar bone height (CEJ to alveolar crest) | 0.90 ± 0.18 | 1.05 ± 0.15 | 1.07 ± 0.12 | <0.001 | 0.15 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.02 |
3) Cortical bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 1.53 ± 0.44 | 1.12 ± 0.38 | 1.05 ± 0.32 | <0.001 | 0.41 ** | 0.48 ** | 0.07 |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 1.75 ± 0.46 | 1.30 ± 0.36 | 1.24 ± 0.33 | <0.001 | 0.45 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.06 |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 1.97 ± 0.44 | 1.49 ± 0.36 | 1.45 ± 0.34 | <0.001 | 0.48 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.04 |
4) Cortical bone height | 3.05 ± 0.22 | 2.91 ± 0.24 | 2.87 ± 0.21 | <0.001 | 0.14 * | 0.18 ** | 0.04 |
5) Cancellous bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | - | - | - | N/A | - | - | - |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 0.49 ± 0.18 | 0.41 ± 0.21 | 0.42 ± 0.20 | 0.078 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.01 |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 1.12 ± 0.15 | 1.06 ± 0.34 | 1.04 ± 0.37 | 0.387 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.02 |
Maxillary Teeth (n = 64) | Ceph | U1CT | U2CT | ANOVA p-Value | Differences | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(C) | (U1) | (U2) | C-U1 | C-U2 | U1-U2 | ||
1) Root diameters | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 5.61 ± 0.68 | 6.07 ± 0.65 | 5.54 ± 0.60 | <0.001 | 0.46 * | 0.07 | 0.52 ** |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 5.16 ± 0.55 | 5.68 ± 0.58 | 5.32 ± 0.80 | <0.001 | 0.52 ** | 0.16 | 0.36 * |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 4.64 ± 0.63 | 5.02 ± 0.63 | 4.85 ± 0.79 | 0.018 | 0.38 | 0.21 | 0.17 |
2) Total root-bone thickness | |||||||
3 mm apical to CEJ | 7.95 ± 0.81 | 7.80 ± 0.81 | 7.15 ± 0.60 | <0.001 | 0.15 | 0.80 ** | 0.65 ** |
6 mm apical to CEJ | 8.35 ± 0.57 | 8.04 ± 0.77 | 7.57 ± 0.70 | <0.001 | 0.31 | 0.78 ** | 0.47 * |
9 mm apical to CEJ | 9.05 ± 0.75 | 8.25 ± 0.79 | 7.97 ± 0.91 | <0.001 | 0.80 ** | 1.08 ** | 0.28 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Teerakanok, S.; Charoemratrote, C.; Chanmanee, P. The Accuracy of Lateral Cephalogram in Representing the Anterior Maxillary Dentoalveolar Position. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1840. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081840
Teerakanok S, Charoemratrote C, Chanmanee P. The Accuracy of Lateral Cephalogram in Representing the Anterior Maxillary Dentoalveolar Position. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(8):1840. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081840
Chicago/Turabian StyleTeerakanok, Supontep, Chairat Charoemratrote, and Pannapat Chanmanee. 2022. "The Accuracy of Lateral Cephalogram in Representing the Anterior Maxillary Dentoalveolar Position" Diagnostics 12, no. 8: 1840. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081840