Accuracy of CBCT measurements of posterior mandible
-
Izzati Nabilah Ismail
,
Mohammad Aizuddin Abu Bakar
,
Khairul Fikri Hairul Anuar
,
Mohamad Arif Ramlee
Abstract
Objectives: This study is aimed at analysing the accuracy and reliability of the cone beam CT (CBCT) measurements and direct physical measurements of the posterior mandible. Materials and Methods: Eighteen cadaveric hemi-mandibles were dissected from the soft tissues and the CBCT images of the mandibles were taken. Direct physical and cone beam CT measurements of six landmarks which includes height of ramus (R), distance of lingula to sigmoid notch (LS), distance of lingula to inferior border (LI), position of lingula in relation to occlusal plane (L-OP), ramus thickness at crestal level (RT-C), and ramus thickness at midway between sigmoid notch and lingula (RT-M) were determined. Accuracy and reliability of the measurements were tested. Results: Four landmarks showed high accuracy when measuring the posterior mandible, while two landmarks, LI and RT-M, showed statistically significant weaker accuracy (p<0.05). Inter-reliability were good for all landmarks when measured directly physically on mandibles (ICC>0.7 and p>0.05), but were low on two landmarks, LI and RT-C, on CBCT measurement (ICC<0.5 andp<0.05).Conclusion: A generally strong accuracy between direct physical and CBCT measurements for most landmarks on posterior mandible were found. Reliability between two researchers were high on direct physical measurements. Meanwhile, two landmarks on CBCT which include LI and RT-C showed low inter-reliability. Hence, CBCT measurements proved to be a good tool for pre-operative assessment, since high inter-reliability and strong accuracy corresponding to direct physical were recorded. Keywords: CBCT accuracy; CBCT measurements; CBCT reliability; Physical measurements; Posterior mandible.
1. Aarabi M, Tabrizi R, Hekmat M, Shahidi S, Puzesh A. Relationship between mandibular anatomy and the occurrence of a bad split upon sagittal split osteotomy. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2014;72(12):2508-13.
2. Leung MY, Leung YY. Three-dimensional evaluation of mandibular asymmetry: a new classification and three-dimensional cephalometric analysis. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2018;47(8):1043-51.
3. Huang CY, Liao YF. Anatomical position of the mandibular canal in relation to the buccal cortical bone in Chinese patients with different dentofacial relationships. J Formos Med Assoc. 2016;115(11):981-90.
4. Chrcanovic BR, Freire-Maia B. Risk factors and prevention of bad splits during sagittal split osteotomy. Oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2012;16(1):19-27.
5. Park K-R, Kim S-Y, Kim G-J, Park H-S, Jung Y-S. Anatomic study to determine a safe surgical reference point for mandibular ramus osteotomy. . Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014;42(1):22–7.
6. Yu IH, Wong YK. Evaluation of mandibular anatomy related to sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography scan images. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2008;37(6):521-8.
7. Westermark A, Englesson L, Bongenhielm U. Neurosensory function after sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible: a comparison between subjective evaluation and objective assessment. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. 1999;14(4):268-75.
8. Reyneke JP, Ferretti C. Anterior open bite correction by Le Fort I or bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2007;19(3):321-38.
9. Verweij JP, Mensink G, Houppermans PNWJ, van Merkesteyn JPR. Angled Osteotomy Design Aimed to Influence the Lingual Fracture Line in Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy: A Human Cadaveric Study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, . 2014;42(7):e359-63.
10. Mensink G, et al. Bad split during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible with separators: a retrospective study of 427 patients. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery. 2013;51(6):525-9.
11. Jaaskelainen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Forssell K, Vahatalo K, Peltola JK, Forssell H. Intraoperative monitoring of the inferior alveolar nerve during mandibular sagittal-split osteotomy. Muscle & nerve. 2000;23(3):368-75.
12. Shaeran TAT, Shaari R, Rahman SA, Alam MK, Husin. AM. Morphometric analysis of prognathic and non-prognathic mandibles in relation to BSSO sites using CBCT. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2017;7:7-12.
13. Behnia H, Motamedian SR, Kiani MT, Morad G, Khojasteh A. Accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomographic measurements of the bone labial and palatal to the maxillary anterior teeth. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2015;30(6):1249-55.
14. Garcia-Sanz V, Bellot-Arcis C, Hernandez V, Serrano-Sanchez P, Guarinos J, Paredes-Gallardo V. Accuracy and Reliability of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Linear and Volumetric Mandibular Condyle Measurements. A Human Cadaver Study. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):11993.
15. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2009;136(1):19-25; discussion -8.
16. Xu J, He J, Yang Q, Huang D, Zhou X, Peters OA, et al. Accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Measuring Dentin Thickness and Its Potential of Predicting the Remaining Dentin Thickness after Removing Fractured Instruments. Journal of endodontics. 2017;43(9):1522-7.
17. Berco M, Rigali PH, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. . American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009;136(1):17.e1–.e9.
18. Sekerci AE, Cantekin K, Aydinbelge M. Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula in a population of children. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:825453.
19. Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S, Jansisyanont P, Supachutikul K, Rattanathamsakul N, Ruangves S, et al. The study of position of antilingula, midwaist of mandibular ramus and midpoint between coronoid process and gonion in relation to lingula of 92 Thai dried mandibles as potential surgical landmarks for vertical ramus osteotomy. Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA. 2011;33(4):337-43.
20. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Abolvardi M, Akhlaghian M, Paknahad M. Comparison of Dental Panoramic Radiography and CBCT for Measuring Vertical Bone Height in Different Horizontal Locations of Posterior Mandibular Alveolar Process. Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran). 2018;19(2):83-91.
21. Sekerci AE, Cantekin K, Aydinbelge M. Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Shape, Height, and Location of the Mandibular Lingula in a Population of Children. BioMed Research International. 2013;vol. 2013:8 pages.
22. Uchida Y, Ihara K, Shikimori M, Goto M, Akiyoshi T. Measurement of Labio-lingual Bone Thickness in the Mandibular Interforaminal Region: a Pilot Cadaveric Study. Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;15:194-8.
23. Ganguly. R, Ruprecht. A, Vincent. S, Hellstein. J, Timmons. S, Qian. F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011 Jul;40(5):299–305.
24. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements.
25. Hsu K-J, Tseng Y-C, Liang S-W, Hsiao S-Y, Chen C-M. Dimension and Location of the Mandibular Lingula: Comparisons of Gender and Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. BioMed Research International. 2020;vol. 2020, :6 pages.
2. Leung MY, Leung YY. Three-dimensional evaluation of mandibular asymmetry: a new classification and three-dimensional cephalometric analysis. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2018;47(8):1043-51.
3. Huang CY, Liao YF. Anatomical position of the mandibular canal in relation to the buccal cortical bone in Chinese patients with different dentofacial relationships. J Formos Med Assoc. 2016;115(11):981-90.
4. Chrcanovic BR, Freire-Maia B. Risk factors and prevention of bad splits during sagittal split osteotomy. Oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2012;16(1):19-27.
5. Park K-R, Kim S-Y, Kim G-J, Park H-S, Jung Y-S. Anatomic study to determine a safe surgical reference point for mandibular ramus osteotomy. . Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014;42(1):22–7.
6. Yu IH, Wong YK. Evaluation of mandibular anatomy related to sagittal split ramus osteotomy using 3-dimensional computed tomography scan images. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2008;37(6):521-8.
7. Westermark A, Englesson L, Bongenhielm U. Neurosensory function after sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible: a comparison between subjective evaluation and objective assessment. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. 1999;14(4):268-75.
8. Reyneke JP, Ferretti C. Anterior open bite correction by Le Fort I or bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2007;19(3):321-38.
9. Verweij JP, Mensink G, Houppermans PNWJ, van Merkesteyn JPR. Angled Osteotomy Design Aimed to Influence the Lingual Fracture Line in Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy: A Human Cadaveric Study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, . 2014;42(7):e359-63.
10. Mensink G, et al. Bad split during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible with separators: a retrospective study of 427 patients. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery. 2013;51(6):525-9.
11. Jaaskelainen SK, Teerijoki-Oksa T, Forssell K, Vahatalo K, Peltola JK, Forssell H. Intraoperative monitoring of the inferior alveolar nerve during mandibular sagittal-split osteotomy. Muscle & nerve. 2000;23(3):368-75.
12. Shaeran TAT, Shaari R, Rahman SA, Alam MK, Husin. AM. Morphometric analysis of prognathic and non-prognathic mandibles in relation to BSSO sites using CBCT. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2017;7:7-12.
13. Behnia H, Motamedian SR, Kiani MT, Morad G, Khojasteh A. Accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomographic measurements of the bone labial and palatal to the maxillary anterior teeth. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2015;30(6):1249-55.
14. Garcia-Sanz V, Bellot-Arcis C, Hernandez V, Serrano-Sanchez P, Guarinos J, Paredes-Gallardo V. Accuracy and Reliability of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Linear and Volumetric Mandibular Condyle Measurements. A Human Cadaver Study. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):11993.
15. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2009;136(1):19-25; discussion -8.
16. Xu J, He J, Yang Q, Huang D, Zhou X, Peters OA, et al. Accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Measuring Dentin Thickness and Its Potential of Predicting the Remaining Dentin Thickness after Removing Fractured Instruments. Journal of endodontics. 2017;43(9):1522-7.
17. Berco M, Rigali PH, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. . American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009;136(1):17.e1–.e9.
18. Sekerci AE, Cantekin K, Aydinbelge M. Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula in a population of children. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:825453.
19. Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S, Jansisyanont P, Supachutikul K, Rattanathamsakul N, Ruangves S, et al. The study of position of antilingula, midwaist of mandibular ramus and midpoint between coronoid process and gonion in relation to lingula of 92 Thai dried mandibles as potential surgical landmarks for vertical ramus osteotomy. Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA. 2011;33(4):337-43.
20. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Abolvardi M, Akhlaghian M, Paknahad M. Comparison of Dental Panoramic Radiography and CBCT for Measuring Vertical Bone Height in Different Horizontal Locations of Posterior Mandibular Alveolar Process. Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran). 2018;19(2):83-91.
21. Sekerci AE, Cantekin K, Aydinbelge M. Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Shape, Height, and Location of the Mandibular Lingula in a Population of Children. BioMed Research International. 2013;vol. 2013:8 pages.
22. Uchida Y, Ihara K, Shikimori M, Goto M, Akiyoshi T. Measurement of Labio-lingual Bone Thickness in the Mandibular Interforaminal Region: a Pilot Cadaveric Study. Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;15:194-8.
23. Ganguly. R, Ruprecht. A, Vincent. S, Hellstein. J, Timmons. S, Qian. F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011 Jul;40(5):299–305.
24. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements.
25. Hsu K-J, Tseng Y-C, Liang S-W, Hsiao S-Y, Chen C-M. Dimension and Location of the Mandibular Lingula: Comparisons of Gender and Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. BioMed Research International. 2020;vol. 2020, :6 pages.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 8, No 2 (Spring 2021) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jcr.v8i2.7642 | |
| Keywords | ||
| CBCT accuracy; CBCT measurements; CBCT reliability; Physical measurements; Posterior mandible. | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Ismail I, Abu Bakar M, Hairul Anuar K, Ramlee M. Accuracy of CBCT measurements of posterior mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Res. 2021;8(2):51-59.
