ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

Italian Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery 2013 December;24(3):127-41

Copyright © 2014 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Measurement comparison between data obtained with 3-D reconstruction from CT and cephalometric radiogram and direct anthropometry and 2D norms

Perrotti G. ¹, Testori T. ², Nowakowska J. K. ³, Del Fabbro M. ^{4, 5}, Weinstein R. L. ^{6, 7}

¹ Section of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, Milan, Italy; ² Section of Implant Dentistry and Oral Rehabilitation, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, Milan, Italy; ³ Section of Orthodontics, Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, Milan, Italy; ⁴ Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; ⁵ IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, Milan, Italy; ⁶ Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; ⁷ Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, Milan, Italy

AIM: The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to compare measurements of the same distances obtained with 3D reconstructions towards 2D cephalometric radiograms; 2) to compare data from 3D measurements with direct anthropometry and 2D “norms” for the facial measurements.
METHODS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled in the study. 40 CBCT scans of Caucasian patients were taken for different dental and dentoskeletal reasons. A large field of view, from the forehead to the chin, was required. The data were stored in DICOM format and imported into a software Ortho Pro 2.1 (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) using a personal computer for 3D reconstruction. After 3D facial soft tissue model generation the distances between 18 soft tissue points were measured. The 3D soft tissue analysis was performed and the facial indices were calculated. The mean 3D values were compared with 2D measurements performed on lateral cephalograms and Arnett’s and Farkas’ norms. The measurements were statistically compared using Student t-test.
RESULTS: Nearly all assessments 2D and 3D showed no statistical difference. There was a significant difference between all 3D measurements and Arnett’s and anthropometric Farkas’ “norms”. The mean difference between Farkas’ “norms” and 3D measurements was within 3 mm for 70 % of measurements.
CONCLUSION: 3D soft tissue analysis allows for complete diagnostic determination. The 3D “norms” are to be verified on a greater sample.