Concordance and reproducibility in the location of reference points for a volumetric craniofacial analysis: Cross-sectional study.
Cephalometry
Cone-beam computed tomography
Orthodontics
Three-dimensional image
Journal
Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects
ISSN: 2008-210X
Titre abrégé: J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101576035
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
25
01
2023
accepted:
26
03
2023
medline:
31
8
2023
pubmed:
31
8
2023
entrez:
31
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Considering the limitations of visualization that occur even with the use of radiographs, the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) becomes more attractive to diagnose and propose an assertive treatment plan. This study aimed to evaluate intra and interobserver reproducibility, and concordance of 31 reference points we described considering visualization tools and the three planes of space in a bimaxillary CBCT. Three observers located in triplicate the 31 reference points in the CBCT of six healthy patients. Friedman test was used to compare intraobserver paired samples, and interobserver concordance was determined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with ranges>0.75 (excellent), between 0.60 and 0.74 (good), between 0.40 and 0.59 (sufficient) and<0.40 (poor). The A high ICC (>0.75%) was obtained by comparing the x, y, and z values at the location of landmark points. Excellent ICC>0.75 was for 81.7% and poor<0.40 was 7.5% in the interobserver evaluation. Data showed that 25 points had excellent concordance on the x-plane, 25 on the y-plane, and 26 on the z-plane (0.75%). Intraobserver concordance analysis indicated that location of anatomical reference points on bimaxillary CBCT is performed with great reproducibility by interpreting their location with a clear description in the three planes of space. Complexity of achieving a good precision degree in the manual marking of reference points caused by convexities of the anatomical structures involved, might explain the variability found. The systematized location of the reference points would contribute to reduce such variability.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Considering the limitations of visualization that occur even with the use of radiographs, the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) becomes more attractive to diagnose and propose an assertive treatment plan. This study aimed to evaluate intra and interobserver reproducibility, and concordance of 31 reference points we described considering visualization tools and the three planes of space in a bimaxillary CBCT.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Three observers located in triplicate the 31 reference points in the CBCT of six healthy patients. Friedman test was used to compare intraobserver paired samples, and interobserver concordance was determined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with ranges>0.75 (excellent), between 0.60 and 0.74 (good), between 0.40 and 0.59 (sufficient) and<0.40 (poor). The
Results
UNASSIGNED
A high ICC (>0.75%) was obtained by comparing the x, y, and z values at the location of landmark points. Excellent ICC>0.75 was for 81.7% and poor<0.40 was 7.5% in the interobserver evaluation. Data showed that 25 points had excellent concordance on the x-plane, 25 on the y-plane, and 26 on the z-plane (0.75%).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Intraobserver concordance analysis indicated that location of anatomical reference points on bimaxillary CBCT is performed with great reproducibility by interpreting their location with a clear description in the three planes of space. Complexity of achieving a good precision degree in the manual marking of reference points caused by convexities of the anatomical structures involved, might explain the variability found. The systematized location of the reference points would contribute to reduce such variability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37649819
doi: 10.34172/joddd.2023.37025
pmc: PMC10462468
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
87-95Informations de copyright
©2023 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Références
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Jan;41(1):11-7
pubmed: 22184624
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):38-44
pubmed: 21447781
Angle Orthod. 2019 Sep;89(5):758-767
pubmed: 30883187
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jun;23(6):2573-2581
pubmed: 31025192
Angle Orthod. 2015 Jan;85(1):11-7
pubmed: 24713068
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 May;137(5):598-604
pubmed: 20451778
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Jul;38(5):262-73
pubmed: 19474253
Korean J Orthod. 2019 Jan;49(1):41-48
pubmed: 30603624
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jan;151(1):118-131
pubmed: 28024764
Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:33-50
pubmed: 28297089
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Feb;107(2):256-65
pubmed: 18718796
Med Image Anal. 2021 May;70:102028
pubmed: 33744833
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jan;151(1):157-166
pubmed: 28024771
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;39(2):156-60
pubmed: 20044238
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 1;11(1):17509
pubmed: 34471202
Angle Orthod. 2019 Mar;89(2):317-332
pubmed: 30423256
Angle Orthod. 2009 Nov;79(6):1047-56
pubmed: 19852593
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):312.e1-10; discussion 312-3
pubmed: 19732656
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Dec;38(6):563-568
pubmed: 26683131
Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec;45(4):213-20
pubmed: 26730368
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017 Nov;20(4):227-236
pubmed: 28960842
Radiol Med. 2017 Aug;122(8):581-588
pubmed: 28365888
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 May;22 Suppl 1:21-29
pubmed: 31074143
J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Oct;30(7):e611-e615
pubmed: 31478954
Int Orthod. 2018 Jun;16(2):328-337
pubmed: 29628421
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Dec;40(8):492-500
pubmed: 22065798