 |
| Title |
2D Cephalometry Is More Reliable Compared to 3D Cephalometry |
| Clinical Question |
Is 2D cephalometry more reliable compared to 3D cephalometry? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
2D cephalometry is more reliable than 3D cephalometry; there are small differences between them. Both 2D and 3D cephalometric analysis are reproducible. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 20044238 | van Vlijmen/2010 | 40 dry skulls | Comparison | | Key results | Measurement accuracy is greater in conventional cephalometric analysis compared to measurements of 3D images. Reliability of 2D and 3D measurements ranged from 0.69 to 0.98. For 9 out of 12 measurements, standard error was smaller for 2D cephalometry. Use one radiograph type to follow growth in an individual, so not to mistake measurement inaccuracy for growth change. | |
| Evidence Search |
("reproducibility of results"[MeSH Terms] OR ("reproducibility"[All Fields] AND "results"[All Fields]) OR "reproducibility of results"[All Fields]) AND "cephalometry/methods"[Mesh Terms] AND ("humans"[MeSH Terms] OR "humans"[All Fields]) |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity:
Quality of the analysis is limited due to lack of a gold standard. Most studies traditionally use conventional cephalometric analysis as the gold standard. The analysis and number of subjects was a positive aspect, as well as having no competing interests.
Perspective:
Every case needs patient centered analysis and treatment planning. For example, for a patient that has full dentition erupted (no missing teeth) a 2D analysis is typically all the information you need. Another example is an adult patient with a retained primary canine; a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) will be needed to determine where the permanent canine is located. In this case, a large field CBCT would be a good option. |
| Applicability |
For patients requiring cephalometric analysis, 2D and 3D cephalometry are valid options. Conventional 2D cephalometry is more widely used since most practitioners do not have 3D technology in their office. Typically large field 3D images expose patients to more radiation than a traditional analysis of panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs. Patients with more complex issues such as craniofacial anomalies and skeletal discrepancies that require orthognathic surgery 3D analysis is a better diagnostic tool. In the future as cost of CBCTs decrease and software is improved, more practitioners will be able to analyze landmarks and angles of 3D images more accurately. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Orthodontics) (Pediatric Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Cephalometry, Cephalometric Analysis, CBCT
|
| ID# |
2534 |
| Date of submission: |
08/07/2013 |
| E-mail |
keym@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Meredith Key |
| Co-author(s) |
Mohamed Elnazer |
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
Elnazer@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
|
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
