Citation Information :
Khandelwal A, Raghav S, Baheti K, Jindal A, Bansod S, Choudhary AS. Assessment of Reliability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Skeletal and Dental Discrepancy. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (7):765-768.
Aim: The present study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental asymmetry with skeletal midline deviation. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 124 patients (males 52, females 72) who underwent orthodontic treatment. The CBCT scan was obtained with the Planmica machine. Three maxillofacial radiologists evaluated 10 landmarks and 12 distances on maxillary and mandibular arches on CBCT images in all patients. Results: Interobserver mean difference at point 1 was 0.33; point 2, 0.34; point 3, 0.32; point 4, 0.58; point 5, 0.56; point 6, 0.44; point 7, 0.28; point 8, 0.22; point 9, 0.54; point 10, 0.21; point 11, 0.34; and point 12, 0.36. The discrepancy between intra- and interobserver was not considerable (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography is useful for diagnosis of skeletal asymmetry. Clinical significance: Cone-beam computed tomography is a reliable and reproducible tool for diagnosis of skeletal asymmetry for successful orthodontic treatment.
Agrawal M, Agrawal JA, Nanjannawar L, et al. Dentofacial asymmetries: challenging diagnosis and treatment planning. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(7):128–131.
Cevidanes LH, Oliveira AE, Grauer D, et al. Clinical application of 3D imaging for assessment of treatment outcomes. Semin Orthod 2014;17(1):72–80. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.012.
Meloti AF, Gonçalves Rde C, Silva E, et al. Lateral cephalometric diagnosis of asymmetry in angle class II subdivision compared to class I and II. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19(4):80–88. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.080-088.oar.
Boldt F, Weinzierl C, Hertrich K, et al. Comparison of the spatial landmark scatter of various 3D digitalization methods. J Orofac Orthop 2009;70(3):247–263. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-009-0902-2.
da Neiva MB, Soares ÁC, Lisboa Cde O, et al. Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. Angle Orthod 2015;85(1):11–17. DOI: 10.2319/120413-891.1.
Škrinjarić A, Mladen Šlaj M, Šlaj M. Fluctuating dental arch asymmetry in different malocclusion groups. Acta stomatol Croat 2018;52(2):105–113. DOI: 10.15644/asc52/2/3.
Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, et al. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17(2):69–91. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12034.
Lenza MA, de Carvalho AA, Lenza EB, et al. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20(3):29–36. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.029-036.oar.
Sanders AD, Chandhoke AK, Uribe FA, et al. Quantification of skeletal asymmetries in normal adolescents: cone-beam computed tomography analysis. Progress Orthod 2014;15(1):26. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0026-0.
Ruellas ACO, Koerich L, Baratieri C, et al. Reliability of CBCT in the diagnosis of dental asymmetry. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19(2):90–95. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.2.090-095.oar.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32(4):229–234. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390.
Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell Jr WE. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;40(1):24–34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/12615645.
Almeida MA, Phillips C, Kula K, et al. Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts. Angle Orthod 2014;65(1):43–48.
Abdelkarim A. Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Dent J 2019;7(3):1–31.