The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability of Conebeam Computed Tomography- and Two Dimensional-based Interpretations of Maxillary Canine Impactions using a Panel of Orthodontically Trained Observers

Mohammad Y Hajeer, Hala K Al-Homsi

Citation Information : Hajeer MY, Al-Homsi HK. An Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability of Conebeam Computed Tomography- and Two Dimensional-based Interpretations of Maxillary Canine Impactions using a Panel of Orthodontically Trained Observers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (8):648-656.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1736

Published Online: 01-08-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives

To assess intra- and interobserver agreement when evaluating maxillary impacted canines using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and two-dimensional (2D) images through a panel of orthodontically trained observers.

Materials and methods

An adult skull with permanent dentition was employed to perform 15 simulated maxillary canine impactions. Two sets of 2D and three-dimensional (3D) radiographic images were acquired. A panel of assessors including 11 PhD and MSc postgraduate orthodontic students evaluated maxillary impacted canines using a standard questionnaire with 11 categorical variables. Kappa (K) statistics as well as Krippendorff's alpha (α) coefficients were used for the analysis of reliability.

Results

A high level of intraobserver agreement was found for both the CBCT- and 2D-based interpretations. The 11 observers demonstrated a higher interobserver agreement for the CBCTbased interpretations than that of the 2D-based interpretations (α = 0.68 and 0.38 respectively). The employed 3D classifications canines was found to be reliable among observers on CBCT images for the labiopalatal position (K = 0.87), mesiodistal position, vertical position, labiopalatal inclination and mesiodistal inclination (α = 0.95, 0.83, 0.84 and 0.92 respectively). The 2D-based interpretations were not in agreement among the 11 observers, except for the mesiodistal position (α = 0.88) and mesiodistal inclination (α = 0.88).

Conclusion

The intraobserver agreement was high for both the 2D- and the CBCT-based interpretations. The interobserver agreement for the CBCT-based interpretations was remarkably higher than that of the 2D-based interpretations. The utilized CBCT-based 3D classifications for the location and inclination of maxillary impacted canines were found reliable among observers.

How to cite this article

Al-Homsi HK, Hajeer MY. An Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography- and Two Dimensional-based Interpretations of Maxillary Canine Impactions using a Panel of Orthodontically Trained Observers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):648-656.


PDF Share
  1. Localization of impacted maxillary canines and observation of adjacent incisor resorption with cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Jan;105(1):91-98.
  2. Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005 Oct;128(4):418-423.
  3. Localization of impacted maxillary canines using cone beam computed tomography. Review of the literature. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2012 Jan;3(1):14-18.
  4. The radiographic localization of impacted maxillary canines: a comparison of methods. Eur J Orthod 2001 Feb;23(1):25-34.
  5. Resorption of incisors after Ectopic Eruption of Maxillary Canines: a CT study. Angle Orthod 2000 Aug;70(6):415-423.
  6. Three-dimensional assessment of impacted canines and root resorption using cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012 Feb;113(2):260-267.
  7. Cone beam computed tomography for assessment of palatal displaced canine position: a methodological study. Angle Orthod 2014 May;84(3):459-466.
  8. Radiographic examination of ectopically erupting maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987 Jun;91(6):483-492.
  9. Radiographic factors affecting the management of impacted upper permanent canines. J Orthod 2000 Jun;27(2):169-173.
  10. Guidelines for the assessment of the impacted maxillary canine. Dent Update 2013 Nov;40(9):770-772.
  11. A treatment difficulty index for unerupted maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod 2006 Apr;28(2):141-144.
  12. A novel 3D classification system for canine impactions—the KPG index. Int J Med Robot 2009 Sep;5(3):291-296.
  13. Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010 May;137(5):590-597.
  14. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod 2011 Feb;33(1):93-102.
  15. Reliability of a novel CBCT-based 3D classification system for maxillary canine impactions in orthodontics: the KPG index. Scientific World J 2013 Oct 9; 2013:921234.
  16. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and the traditional radiography in the 3D localization of maxillary impacted canines [Dissertation]. Damascus: Damascus University; 2015.
  17. 3D Evaluation of Upper Impacted Canines using Cone Beam Computerised Tomography (CBCT) in a Syrian Sample of Orthodontic Patients. Univ Al-Baath J Med Sci 2012;32(4):501-520.
  18. The assessment of impacted maxillary canine position with panoramic radiography and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012 Jul;41(5):355-360.
  19. Impacted maxillary canines and root resorptions of neighbouring teeth: A radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Orthod 2013 Aug;35(4):529-538.
  20. Resorption of maxillary lateral incisors caused by ectopic eruption of the canines. A clinical and radiographic analysis of predisposing factors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988 Dec;94(6):503-513.
  21. Two interceptive approaches to palatally displaced canines: a prospective longitudinal study. Angle Orthod 2004 Oct;74(5):581-586.
  22. Percentiles relative to maxillary permanent canine inclination by age: a radiologic study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009 Oct;136(4):486.e1-e6.
  23. Orthodontic treatment planning for impacted maxillary canines using conventional records versus 3D CBCT. Eur J Orthod 2014 Dec;36(6):698-707.
  24. Different diagnostic tools for the localization of impacted maxillary canines: clinical considerations. Prog Orthod 2007;8(1):28-44.
  25. The ectopic maxillary canine: a review. Br J Orthod 1998 Aug;25(3):209-216.
  26. Assessment of radiographic factors affecting surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment of impacted canines of the palate: A 15-year retrospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009 Jun;107(6):772-775.
  27. Radiographic localization of unerupted maxillary anterior teeth using the vertical tube shift technique: the history and application of the method with some case reports. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999 Oct;116(4):415-423.
  28. In-vitro comparison of 2 cone beam computed tomography systems and panoramic imaging for detecting simulated canine impactioninduced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009 Dec;136(6):764.e1-e11.
  29. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 Mar;33(1):159-174.
  30. Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004. p. 413.
  31. The effectiveness of orthodontists and oral radiologists in the diagnosis of impacted maxillary canines [Dissertation]. Chapel Hill, North carolina: University of North Carolina; 2006.
  32. Localising maxillary canines using dental panoramic tomography. Br Dent J 1995 Dec 9-23; 179(11-12):416-420.
  33. Localizing ectopic maxillary canines—horizontal or vertical parallax? Eur J Orthod 2003 Dec;25(6):585-589.
  34. Impacted upper canines: examination and treatment proposal based on 3D versus 2D diagnosis. J Orofac Orthop 2012 Jan;73(1):28-40.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.