Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ann Natl Acad Med Sci 2019; 55(04): 202-209
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701144
Original Article

Orientation of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Image: Pursuit of Perfect Orientation Plane in Three Dimensions—A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Rajiv Balachandran
1   Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Deformities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Om Prakash Kharbanda
1   Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Deformities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Karthik Sennimalai
1   Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Deformities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Bala Chakravarthy Neelapu
2   Department of Computational Instrumentation, Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Chandigarh, India
3   Department of ECE, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Andhra Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of nine reference planes used in orientation of as-received cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in all three dimensions.

Materials and Methods The study was conducted on CBCT images of 15 adult subjects (mean age 21.2 ± 5.8 years). The anonymized CBCT images were oriented using five different methods created from nine reference planes by two experienced orthodontists. For each subject, pitch, yaw, and roll changes with five orientation methods were recorded twice by each observer.

Statistical Analysis The inter- and intraobserver agreement was tested using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland–Altman plot. The intra- and interobserver error was analyzed using paired t-test. Analysis of variance and paired t-test were used to analyze the differences among the various pitch, roll, and yaw orientation planes.

Results Inter- and intraobserver agreement (ICC, 0.9) was excellent for all the nine reference planes. The interobserver reliability showed statistically significant differences for four planes namely Frankfort horizontal plane constructed on right side (p = 0.014) and left side (p = 0.000), transorbital plane (p = 0.001), and midsagittal plane on top view (p = 0.036); however, the mean differences were clinically insignificant.

Conclusion The landmark-based nine reference planes used in this study to orient CBCT images showed good reproducibility. Therefore, these reference planes can be used to orient CBCT images and can be incorporated into automated software.

Keywords

cone-beam computed tomography - orthodontics - orthognathic surgery - cephalometry - standardization


Publication History

Article published online:
12 February 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Xia JJ, McGrory JK, Gateno J. et al. A new method to orient 3-dimensional computed tomography models to the natural head position: a clinical feasibility study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (03) 584-591
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Leung MY, Lo J, Leung YY. Accuracy of different modalities to record natural head position in 3 dimensions: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (11) 2261-2284
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cassi D, De Biase C, Tonni I, Gandolfini M, Di Blasio A, Piancino MG. Natural position of the head: review of two-dimensional and three-dimensional methods of recording. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54 (03) 233-240
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Barbera AL, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC. An evaluation of head position and craniofacial reference line variation. Homo 2009; 60 (01) 1-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Moorrees CF. Natural head position–a revival. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105 (05) 512-513
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Vale F, Scherzberg J, Cavaleiro J. et al. 3D virtual planning in orthognathic surgery and CAD/CAM surgical splints generation in one patient with craniofacial microsomia: a case report. Dental Press J Orthod 2016; 21 (01) 89-100
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Shafer D, Nanda R. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography-based virtual treatment planning and fabrication of a surgical splint for asymmetric patients: surgery first approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144 (05) 748-758
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Cevidanes LH, Bailey LJ, Tucker GR Jr. et al. Superimposition of 3D cone-beam CT models of orthognathic surgery patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34 (06) 369-375
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Cevidanes LH, Bailey LJ, Tucker SF. et al. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography for assessment of mandibular changes after orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131 (01) 44-50
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lagravère MO, Major PW. Proposed reference point for 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis with cone-beam computerized tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128 (05) 657-660
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Olszewski R, Zech F, Cosnard G, Nicolas V, Macq B, Reychler H. Three-dimensional computed tomography cephalometric craniofacial analysis: experimental validation in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36 (09) 828-833
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 (03) 410-416
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F, Barth E-L, De Groeve P, De Mey A. A new method of 3-D cephalometry Part I: the anatomic Cartesian 3-D reference system. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17 (02) 314-325
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014; 17 (02) 69-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ruellas AC, Tonello C, Gomes LR. et al. Common 3-dimensional coordinate system for assessment of directional changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149 (05) 645-656
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V. et al. A pilot study for segmentation of pharyngeal and sino-nasal airway subregions by automatic contour initialization. Int J CARS 2017; 12 (11) 1877-1893
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Damstra J, Fourie Z, Ren Y. Simple technique to achieve a natural position of the head for cone beam computed tomography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 48 (03) 236-238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 de Paula LK, Ackerman JL, Carvalho F de AR, Eidson L, Cevidanes LH. Digital live-tracking 3-dimensional minisensors for recording head orientation during image acquisition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (01) 116-123
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hsung TC, Lo J, Li TS, Cheung LK. Recording of natural head position using stereophotogrammetry: a new technique and reliability study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72 (11) 2256-2261
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Lin HH, Chuang YF, Weng JL, Lo LJ. Comparative validity and reproducibility study of various landmark-oriented reference planes in 3-dimensional computed tomographic analysis for patients receiving orthognathic surgery. PLoS One 2015; 10 (02) e0117604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Pittayapat P, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. et al. Three-dimensional Frankfort horizontal plane for 3D cephalometry: a comparative assessment of conventional versus novel landmarks and horizontal planes. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40 (03) 239-248
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Madsen DP, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC. Craniofacial reference plane variation and natural head position. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30 (05) 532-540
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lundström A, Lundström F. The Frankfort horizontal as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107 (05) 537-540
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gupta A, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Balachandran R, Sardana HK. Accuracy of 3D cephalometric measurements based on an automatic knowledge-based landmark detection algorithm. Int J CARS 2016; 11 (07) 1297-1309
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948; 34 (10) 812-840
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39 (10) 729-755
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1961; 31 (03) 141-156
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Lagravère 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 (05) 601-604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Barbera AL, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC. Variation in natural head position and establishing corrected head position. Homo 2014; 65 (03) 187-200
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Daboul A, Schwahn C, Schaffner G. et al. Reproducibility of Frankfort horizontal plane on 3D multi-planar reconstructed MR images. PLoS One 2012; 7 (10) e48281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Cooke MS. Five-year reproducibility of natural head posture: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97 (06) 489-494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Cho D, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK. Changes in natural head position after orthognathic surgery in skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147 (06) 747-754
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar