Ege DOĞAN, Hasan ÇINARCIK, Servet DOĞAN, Furkan DİNDAROĞLU

Is Cephalometric Analysis Reliable in Cases with Cleft Lip and Palate?

Objective: The aim of this study is to test the reliability of the cephalometric measurements made on lateral cephalometric radiographs in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients (UCLP).Material and Method: The study was carried out on a total of 30 lateral cephalometric images belonging to 15 male patients (mean age: 17.3 ± 5.2 years) and 15 female patients (mean age: 16.8 ± 6.1) who had unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCCLP). By utilizing 9 different methods of cephalometric analysis, measurements were made for 94 parameters including skeletal, soft tissue and dental parameters. The measurements were made by 3 researchers (2 inexperienced, 1 experienced) on a computer program; Dolphin Imaging Software 11.7. Paired samples t-test was used to assess intra-observer and inter- observer reliability.Results: In the skeletal measurements, the intra-observer reliability was high in the LAFH (ANS-Me) (mm), in SNA(o); Witz (mm); U1-FH (o), Nasal Prominence (mm) measurements among the inexperienced researchers (H1-H2) (E1-E2) and the experienced researcher (S1-S2). The increase in the confidence interval values between two researchers (one experienced, one inexperienced) was high.Conclusion: Cephalometric analysis is very important in diagnosis and treatment planning in patients with CLP. Particular attention should be paid to marking Na, A, ANS, Subnasal and U1 points which are located in the cleft areas. Reliability limits are especially important in cephalometric measurements on individuals with cleft lip and palate in terms of guiding clinicians.

PDF

___

1-Kragskov J, Bosch G, Gyldensted C, Sindet-PedersenS. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;3(34):111-116.

2-Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: Historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod. 1999;(69):491-506.

3-Rakosi T. Cephalometric radiography. London: Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd. 1982;(7):223.

4-Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, ReuterI.Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61:91-99.

5-Sam A, Currie K, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravere- Vich M. Reliability of different three-dimensionalcephalometric landmarks in cone-beam computedtomography : A systematic review., Angle Orthod. 2018 Nov 13. doi: 10.2319/042018-302.1.

6-Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, Sardana HK. Automatic localization of three-dimensionalcephalometric landmarks on CBCT imagesby extracting symmetry features of the skull.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018 Feb;47(2):20170054. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170054. Epub 2018 Jan 3.

7-Midtgård J, Björk G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod. 1974 ;(44):56-61.

8-Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. : Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three- dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Jul;38:262-73.

9-Mølsted K, Brattstro ̈m V, Prahl-Andersen B, Shaw WC, Semb G. The Eurocleft study. Intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete uni- lateral cleft lip and palate. Part 3: Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004;(42):78–82.

10-Aras I, Altan AB, Doğan S, Yetkiner E.: Evaluation of the Modified True Vertical Line in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2016;(22):92-96.

11-Björk A. The face in profile. Svensk Tandlaekare- Tidskrift, Vol. 40; No. 5B, suppl. Berlingska, Boktrykeriet, Lund, 1947.

12-Downs WB. Analysis of the dento-facial profile. Am J Orthod. 1956;(26):191-212.

13-HoldawayRA.A soft-tissuecephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am JOrthod. 1984;85(4):279-93.

14-McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984;(86):449-69.

15-Ricketts RM. Cephalometric Analysis And Synthesis.Angle Orthod. 1961;(7):223.

16-Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;(39):729-755.

17-Tweed Ch.: Clinical Orthodontics. The C. V. Mosby Co. St. Louis, U.S.A.; 1966.

18-Drahorádová M, Müllerová Z. Deviations in craniofacial morphology in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate evaluated by Jarabak’s analysis. Acta Chir Plast. 1997;39(4):121-124.

19-Chen Y, Hong Y, Wu K, Chen M, Chan H, Chen K. Jaw tariangle analysis: an adjuvan diagnostics. Chin Dent J. 1993;(12):56-70.

20-Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod. 1974;(1):95-101.

21-Mossey PA,Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;21:(374):1773-85.

22-Durão AR, Pittayapat P, Rockenbach MI, Olszewski R, Ng S, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Validity of 2D lateralcephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review.Prog Orthod. 2013; 14(1):31.

23-Hofmann E, Fimmers R, Schmid M, Hirschfelder U, Detterbeck A, Hertrich K. Landmarks of the Frankfort horizontal plane:Reliability in a three- dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77(5):373-383.

24-Yoon YJ, Kim KS, Hwang MS, Kim HJ, Choi EH, Kim KW. Effect of Head Rotation on Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs. Angle Orthod. 2001;10(71):396-403.

25-Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;(60):111-127.

26-Midtgård J, Björk G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod. 1974;(44):56-61.

27-Stabrun AE, Danielsen K. Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. Eur J Orthod. 1982;(4):185-196.

28-David OT, Tuce RA, Munteanu O, Neagu A, PanainteI.Evaluation of the influence of patient positioning on the reliability of lateral cephalometry. Radiol Med. 2017;122(7):520-529.

29-Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In Vivo Comparison of Conventional and Cone Beam CT Synthesized Cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2008;9(78):873-879.

30-Liedke GS, Delamare EL, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, Prietsch JR, Dutra V, da Silveira HE. Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms.DentomaxillofacRadiol.2012;(41):136-142.