Three-dimensional cephalometric norms of Turkish Cypriots using CBCTimages reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to create a database of 3D cephalometric measurements of Turkish Cypriot patients using a 3D rendering software program. Materials and methods: The study population comprised 121 subjects who had undergone cone beam CT imaging (CBCT). Invivo 5.1 software was used to generate cephalograms from the CBCT dataset that were then linked to the 3D hard-tissue surface representations. In total, 38 angular and 28 linear widely used measurements were recorded. Results: The results demonstrated that males had significantly larger mean values than females for all linear measurements, except for dentoalveolar parameters (P < 0.05). Additionally, significant differences were found in most of the mandibular anteroposterior and vertical measurements, especially SNB, GoGn/SN, FMA, and MP/SN, between the sexes (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This is the first population-based study to focus solely on Turkish Cypriots craniofacial anatomy and orthodontic characteristics. The present findings will produce 3D cephalometric normative data for the Cypriot population and will be valuable for oral and maxillofacial surgeons and orthodontists in Cyprus, the UK, Australia, Turkey, and other European countries who treat a large number of Turkish Cypriot patients.

PDF

___

1. Macri V, Athanasiou AE. Sources of error in lateral cephalometry. In: Athanasiou AE, editor. Orthodontic Cephalometry. London, UK: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995. pp. 125-140.
2. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1558-1564.
3. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 798-802.
4. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 263-269.
5. Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: Spiral multi-slice vs cone beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 410-416.
6. Kalender A, Orhan K, Aksoy U. Evaluation of the mental foramen and accessory mental foramen in Turkish patients using cone-beam computed tomography images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program. Clin Anat 2012; 25: 584-592.
7. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I: On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-269.
8. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 873-879.
9. Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 492-500.
10. Longoni S, Sartori M, Braun M, Bravetti P, Lapi A, Baldoni M, Tredici G. Lingual vascular canals of the mandible: the risk of bleeding complications during implant procedures. Implant Dent 2007; 16: 131-138.
11. Cheung LK, Chan YM, Jayaratne YS. Three-dimensional cephalometric norms of Chinese adults in Hong Kong with balanced facial profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: e56-73.
12. Gateno J, Xia JJ, Teichgraeber JF. New 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 606-622.
13. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three-dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod. 2013; 43: 62- 73.
14. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of threedimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-134.
15. Bosch C, Athanasiou AE. Landmarks, variables and norms of various numerical cephalometric analyses cephalometric morphologic and growth data references. In: Athanasiou AE, editor. Orthodontic Cephalometry. London, UK: MosbyWolfe; 1995. pp. 241-292.
16. Bacon W, Girardin P, Turlot JC. A comparison of cephalometric norms for the African Bantu and a caucasoid population. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5: 233-240.
17. Park IC, Bowman D, Klapper L. A cephalometric study of Korean adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 54- 59.
18. Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Messersmith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 146-155.
19. Miyajima K, McNamara JA Jr, Kimura T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 431-438.
20. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and wellbalanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 366-372.
21. Kilic N, Catal G, Oktay H. McNamara norms for Turkish adolescents with balanced faces and normal occlusion. Aust Orthod J 2010; 26: 33-37.
22. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948; 34: 812-840.
23. Nanda R, Nanda RS. Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of North Indians. Angle Orthod 1969; 39: 22-28.
24. Hassan AH. Cephalometric norms for Saudi adults living in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 109-113.
25. Gleis R, Brezniak N, Lieberman M. Israeli cephalometric standards compared to Downs and Steiner analyses. Angle Orthod 1990; 60: 35-40.
26. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 729-755.
27. Ousehal L, Lazrak L, Chafii A. Cephalometric norms for a Moroccan population. Int Orthod 2012; 10: 122-134.
28. Ricketts RM. Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod 1968; 54: 272-289.
29. Vahdettin L, Altug Z. Longitudinal soft-tissue profile changes in adolescent Class I subjects. J Orofac Orthop 2012; 73: 440- 453.
30. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 115-150.