OOOOEVolume 103, Number 4 Ludlow et al. 535ric measurement.14 This study uses multiple positionsof multiple dry skulls to assess the accuracy of planerand three-dimensional measurements of mandibularanatomy.MATERIAL AND METHODSSkull preparation and landmark identiﬁcation While a number of anatomical landmarks may bechosen to evaluate image ﬁdelity in the assessment ofmandibular symmetry, a combination of investigator-applied radiopaque markers and natural anatomic land-marks that could be employed in making caudal-cranialand anterior-posterior measurements were chosen for Fig. 1. Modiﬁed angle divisor tool with right mandible seatedthis study. Superior condylar surface (condylion), go- and ready for marking of gonial angle. A pencil will be placednial angle (gonion), and mental foramen were selected in the groove of the bisector arm to mark gonion.as anatomic landmarks. Condylion to gonion measure-ment (C-G) provides an assessment of the verticaldimension of the ramus and its contribution to posteriorfacial height. Gonion to mental foramen measurement border. It is difﬁcult to locate the most posterior and(G-MF) permits horizontal assessment of mandibular inferior point on this curved surface without the aid ofdimension. These dimensions are commonly affected surface tangents and angle bisectors. In an approachby mandibular asymmetry. Fixed-length straight orth- that permitted the application of tangents and bisectors,odontic wires, afﬁxed to the mandible in vertical and an angle-forming tool (Angle Divider No. 19050, Bighorizontal orientations, provided external references for Horn Corporation, Littleton, Colo) was modiﬁed withimage measurement accuracy. the addition of wood block extensions (Fig. 1). Each Thirty dry skulls were borrowed from the Anatomy side of the mandible was positioned in the angle divisorDepartment at the University of North Carolina at such that the extensions simultaneously contacted 2Chapel Hill. Radiopaque .018-inch straight orthodontic points on the posterior ramus edge and 2 points on thewires, trimmed to precise lengths of 40.0 mm and 20.0 inferior border of the mandible. Using the tip of amm, were attached to the right and left sides of each pencil, the bisector of this gonial angle was markedmandible. The 40-mm markers were oriented approxi- where it visually intersected the cortical border of themately parallel to C-G and afﬁxed to the lateral surface mandible. Marking of gonion was facilitated by aof the mandibular ramus by using clear adhesive tape. groove in the center of the bisector arm through whichThe 20-mm markers were oriented approximately par- the pencil point was inserted. If a continuously curvingallel to G-MF and similarly attached to the lateral lower mandibular border was encountered, a tangent tosurface of the mandibular body. this surface at the middle of the body of the mandible Paper adhesive labels were placed on the anterior was used. A digital caliper (Absolute Digimatic No.skull and marked with lines to facilitate skull position- 500-172, Mitutoyo America Corporation, Aurora, Ill)ing for radiographic images. These labels were placed was used to measure the distances between C-G andon the anterior nasal spine, nasion, and anatomical G-MF. Distances were recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm.pogonion. The labels were also marked 7 mm to the leftof each of these anatomic points. Graph paper was Cone beam computed tomography imagesplaced over the area on the skull where the calvarium Cone beam computed tomography images were ac-had been removed. A line representing the midsagittal quired with a NewTom 9000 CBCT scanner (NIMplane was drawn on the graph paper. A second line was S.r.l., Verona, Italy) using a 9-inch ﬁeld of view. Todrawn 7 mm to the left of midsagittal. A third line was maintain their dry condition while immersed in water,scribed that was at 10° to midsagittal as measured with skulls were placed in plastic bags and oriented in aa protractor by using a vertex located 7 cm posterior to supine position in an acrylic immersion box (20 cm ϫthe most anterior point on the midsagittal line. 20 cm ϫ 20 cm) for image acquisition. The box design incorporated vertical lines marking the midsagittalSkull measurement plane of the box. The aforementioned skull labels were Accurate determination of gonion is challenging. used to orient the skull midsagittal plane relative to theThe problem is related to the curving transition between box midsagittal plane. The box midsagittal plane wasthe posterior ramus margin and the inferior mandibular then aligned with respect to the midsagittal-positioning
OOOOE536 Ludlow et al. April 2007Fig. 2. Example of 15-mm panoramic image layer used for two-dimensional measures. Condylion, gonion, and mental foramenmarks are projections from the axial slice at the center of the image layer location (see Fig. 3). Measurement values: A ϭgonion-mental foramen distance, B ϭ horizontal reference wire, C ϭ vertical reference wire, D ϭ condylion-gonion distance, Eϭ gonial angle, and F ϭ gonial angle bisector.laser of th CBCT unit. A laterally placed anterior- located within the slice. Once the reconstruction hadposterior positioning laser on the unit was used to taken place, axial views of the data were used to locateadjust the height of the patient table until the laser was speciﬁc anatomical points. Superior condyle and thecentered on the ramus. For ideal position, midsagittal posterior edge of the mental foramen on each side wereplanes of the skull and box were centered in the mid- marked using the software marking tool. These markssagittal-positioning beam. For shifted position, skull were centered on each landmark and were extendedorientation remained the same, but the box was shifted approximately 2 cm mediolaterally. In the case of theto the right until the midsagittal positioning beam condyle, the mark extended parallel to the long axis ofaligned with the marks on the skull labels correspond- the condyle. In the case of the mental foramen, theing to the 7-mm lateral shifted position. For rotated mark was extended perpendicular to the long axis of theposition, the skull was removed from the box and body of the mandible at this point. These marks wererepositioned in such a way that the rotated line on the automatically displayed in the panoramic image at thegraph paper covering the cranial vault now corre- point where each intersected the center of the imagesponded to the midsagittal plane of the box. After the layer. Gonial angle was deﬁned using the softwareskull was secured in place using a combination of rigid angle tool. In a manner analogous to the physical de-fasteners and elastic bands, the box was ﬁlled with termination of gonion on the skull, the arms of thewater to simulate the attenuation of soft tissues that angle were placed in contact with the surface of thewould be present in clinical imaging. Computed tomog- posterior ramus border and inferior mandibular bodyraphy data were imported into NewTom 3G software border. A second angle was placed at the vertex of thefor primary reconstruction of images. Primary recon-structions were made using the large window setting ﬁrst angle to form a bisecting angle. The contact of thewith .5-mm axial slices. Axial slicing was oriented bisector with the cortical border was deﬁned as gonionparallel to the Frankfort plane. (Fig. 2). Measurements were made using a computer mouseCone beam computed tomography measurement to position the two-dimensional measurement toolusing panoramic slice and two-dimensional tool cursor at one and then the other end of the landmarks Secondary reconstruction and measurement of the of interest. The distance between landmarks alongCBCT images was accomplished using the NewTom the curved plane at the center of the panoramic image3G software package. With operator-selected 15- or layer was automatically calculated and displayed.20-mm slice thicknesses, the panoramic tool was used Lengths of the vertical and horizontal markers ason a representative axial slice to reconstruct the CBCT well as C-G and G-MF distances were measured fordata in the form of a panoramic image. Initial mapping each side. The image reconstruction software andof the panoramic path was adjusted as needed to ensure measuring tools are calibrated by the manufacturerthat all anatomical points of interest could be easily for 1:1 measurement.
OOOOEVolume 103, Number 4 Ludlow et al. 537Fig. 3. Axial slices and marked measuring points. Red lines are placed perpendicular to the panoramic image path and tangentto the landmark. Crosshairs represent measuring points placed by the three-dimensional measuring tool. Crosshairs are displayedin every axial slice between the actual measurement point locations. A, Marking of superior condylar surfaces bilaterally andmeasurement of condylion-gonion distance. B, Marking of the ramus cortex at gonion bilaterally. Inner values representgonion-mental foramen measurements. Outer values depict condylion to gonion measurement distance. C, Marking of the innercortical surface of the posterior aspect of the right mental foramen. Measurements are gonion to mental foramen measurementdistances.Cone beam computed tomography measurement gonion region in the lateral scout view, the axial sliceusing axial slices and three-dimensional tool associated with this area is displayed. In this axial slice, The NewTom CBCT software allows the user to the marker tool was used to draw a short line tangent tomeasure linear distances in 3 dimensions by using 2 the posterior ramus surface and perpendicular to thedifferent axial slices. Vertical and horizontal markers long axis of the ramus. The location of this mark waswere measured by mouse clicking the three-dimen- checked in the panoramic image layer. If the mark wassional measurement tool on the marker in the ﬁrst axial not coincident with the intersection point of the gonialslice in which it appeared, as well as the last axial slice angle bisector line with the ramus border, the mark wasbefore it disappeared. Due to their radiopaque nature erased and a different axial slice was selected andand ﬁnite size, the ends of the markers were easily marked. After gonion was marked, the cursor of theidentiﬁed in the axial slices. Condylion to gonion mea- three-dimensional measuring tool was positioned onsurement and G-MF measurements were made after the mark for 1 of the 2 desired landmarks. The operatorﬁrst marking gonion in the axial slice by using the then scrolled through the stack of axial slices until themarker tool. Gonion location was determined itera- mark for the other landmark was located. After select-tively. By double-clicking the cursor location on the ing this landmark, the linear distance between the
OOOOE538 Ludlow et al. April 2007points was automatically calculated. Fig. 3 provides Table I. Intraobserver and interobserver variation inexamples of axial slices containing condylion, gonion, measuring condylion-gonion and gonion-mental fora-and mental foramen. Measured distance and pairs of men distances on 25 skullscrosshairs indicating the trajectory between points are C-G G-MFautomatically recorded on the images. Intraobserver Mean difference Ϫ0.08 0.12 reading 2-1 Standard error 0.17 0.13Observers Probability of Ͼ |t| 0.6317 0.3627 Interobserver Mean difference Ϫ0.89 0.87 Skull dimensions were measured twice by observer observer Standard error 0.25 0.26A and once by observer B. Wire segments were mea- A, B Probability of Ͼ |t| 0.0009 0.0018sured twice in two-dimensional and three-dimensional C-G, condylion-gonion; G-MF, gonion-mental foramen; prob, authorimages by observer C. Condylion to gonion measure- queried.ment and G-MF distances were measured in CBCTimages once each by observers A and B. Observer Awas an experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologist.Observer B was a third-year dental student having little second measurements of the skull features was used asprior experience with skull or image measurement tech- “truth,” assessment of C-G and G-MF measurementniques. Observer C was a third-year orthodontic resi- accuracy was constrained to the 25 skulls with com-dent. plete data. Table I shows the reproducibility of repeated measurement of skulls. Measurements were reproduc-Statistical analysis ible for observer A with a mean difference of Ϫ0.08 Interobserver variation was determined by paired t mm for C-G and 0.12 mm for G-MF between secondtests for skull, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional and ﬁrst measurements. These differences were notmeasurements. Intraobserver measurement variation statistically signiﬁcant. Interobserver variation waswas determined by paired t tests of ﬁrst and second greater with a difference of Ϫ0.89 mm for C-G andmeasurements. To compensate for multiple compari- 0.87 mm for G-MF between observer A and observersons, signiﬁcance was set at ␣ ϭ 0.01. Averages of the B. These differences were statistically signiﬁcant.2 measurements of observer A were used for further Repeated measurements of horizontal and verticallycomparisons of imaging method and anatomic feature. oriented wires seen in Table II were not different forPaired t tests were used to determine statistical signif- two-dimensional measurements and were on averageicance between measurements of CT and photographic within 0.25 mm of each other. First and second three-images. Again, an alpha level of .01 was selected for dimensional measurements were also not statisticallystatistical signiﬁcance. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) different and were on average within 0.07 mm withwas performed on the subset of measurements common repeated measurement. Interobserver variation in theto both two-dimensional and three-dimensional mea- measurement of skeletal landmarks is seen in Table III.surement techniques. The ANOVA model included While signiﬁcant differences in measurement were seenmain effects of two-dimensional versus three-dimen- with the 2 observers, the means of these differencessional measurements (2), skull orientation (3), skull were less than 0.9 mm.side (2), and skull measurement feature (C-G, G-MF), Table IV shows ANOVA model factors and P valuesas well as the interactions of these variables. The resulting from the assessment of difference and abso-threshold for statistical signiﬁcance was set at ␣ ϭ .05. lute value of difference between CT measurements and direct skull measurements for observer A. DifferenceRESULTS and magnitude of difference (absolute value) measure- Two of the original 30 skulls had 1 or more image ments were not signiﬁcant for measuring technique orvolumes where a condyle was shifted or rotated out of skull position. The magnitude of difference in measur-the image volume, limiting the image data to 28 skulls. ing right or left sides was signiﬁcantly different; how-These skulls and images were excluded from the data ever, on average, there was neither signiﬁcant underes-analysis. Images from the 28 skulls were used to cal- timation nor overestimation due to skull side. Anculate interobserver measurement variation. In addi- interaction of anatomic feature and skull side was sig-tion, these skull images were used to determine mea- niﬁcant for measurement difference, but not for mea-surement accuracy of horizontal and vertical reference surement magnitude.wires. Following initial skull measurement, 3 of the The sources of signiﬁcant measurement differencesskulls were unavailable for interobserver and intraob- between CT and known wire dimensions or skull mea-server measurement. Therefore, complete data was surements can be seen in Tables V and VI. The dataavailable for 25 skulls. Because an average of ﬁrst and from wire measurements using either two-dimensional
OOOOEVolume 103, Number 4 Ludlow et al. 539Table II. Repeated measurements accuracy. Difference between ﬁrst and second measurements for 28 skulls 2D measurement 3D measurementWire Skull Mean Difference Mean Differenceorientation side (Mean Abs Diff) SD P value (Mean Abs Diff) SD P valueHorizontal Left 0.25 0.99 0.02 Ϫ0.02 0.56 0.71 (0.50) 0.39 (0.34) 0.23 Right Ϫ0.24 1.01 0.03 Ϫ0.05 0.42 0.24 (0.47) 0.34 (0.19) 0.14Vertical Left 0.02 0.84 0.8 0.07 0.38 0.08 (0.56) 0.39 (0.25) 0.19 Right 0.22 1.01 0.04 0.03 0.36 0.46 (0.61) 0.47 (0.37) 0.232D, two dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; mean abs diff, mean absolute value of difference (measurement–truth).Table III. Interobserver variation in measuring go- Table IV. Assessment of difference and absolute valuenion-mental foramen and condylion-gonion distances of difference between image measurements and skullusing two-dimensional and three-dimensional measure- measurements: ANOVA model and resulting P valuesment techniques on 28 skulls imaged in 3 positions: Absolutedifference observers A and B Difference differenceLandmarks Side Measurement 2D 3D Probability of Probability of Source Factors ϾF ϾFG-MF Left Mean difference 0.17 Ϫ0.78 Standard error 0.27 0.20 Modality 2D, 3D 0.7107 0.0682 Probability of Ͼ |t| 0.5185 0.0002 Feature G-MF, C-G Ͻ.0001 Ͻ.0001 Right Mean difference 0.29 Ϫ0.75 Position Ideal, rotated, 0.2510 0.5585 Standard error 0.20 0.19 shifted Probability of Ͼ |t| 0.1651 0.0002 Side Right, left 0.1382 Ͻ.0001C-G Left Mean difference Ϫ0.90 Ϫ0.62 Modality*position 0.7772 0.9244 Standard error 0.19 0.19 Modality*feature 0.0338 0.6808 Probability of Ͼ |t| Ͻ.0001 0.0017 Modality*side 0.5779 0.1942 Right Mean difference Ϫ0.41 0.24 Position*feature 0.2633 0.1701 Standard error 0.18 0.24 Position*side 0.6556 0.6268 Probability of Ͼ |t| 0.0314 0.2029 Feature*side Ͻ.0001 0.37482D, two-dimensional; 3D, three dimensional; G-MF, gonion-mental 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; G-MF, gonion-mentalforamen; C-G, condylion-gonion; prob, author queried. foramen; C-G, condylion-gonion. *indicates interaction term.or three-dimensional techniques demonstrate excellentaccuracy regardless of wire orientation, measurement 2.9%. Using three-dimensional techniques, G-MF andside, or skull position. Average magnitude of differ- C-G were both overestimated by 2.5% and 3.1%, re-ences in wire measurements was less than 0.5 mm for spectively. The average magnitude of error for all mea-two-dimensional CT, and less than 0.3 mm for three- surements was 2.8% for two-dimensional techniquesdimensional CT. For the two-dimensional measurement and 2.5% for three-dimensional techniques.technique, consistent undermeasurement of wires aver-aged approximately 1.2% of the actual distance, while DISCUSSIONthe average magnitude of error was approximately There are a number of potential sources for measure-2.0%. For three-dimensional measurement, horizontal ment error in this study. The CBCT unit actually rotateswire length was slightly overestimated, whereas verti- with a slight wobble that is a potential source of imagecal wire length was underestimated. Average measure- distortion. A correction algorithm is used to removement error was approximately 0.7%, and the average that distortion prior to reconstruction of images. Errorsmagnitude of individual errors was approximately 1%. in the algorithm or changes in the wobble pattern over Anatomical measurements were more variable re- time may result in residual distortion. Precision ofgardless of measurement technique. Using two-dimen- measurement is limited by the resolution of the system.sional measurement techniques, G-MF was overesti- The reconstruction pixel size of 0.5 mm chosen for thismated by 3.8%, whereas C-G was underestimated by study limits accuracy of individual measurements to
OOOOE540 Ludlow et al. April 2007Table V. Wire landmarks: comparison of differences between two-dimensional and three-dimensional measure-ments of 20-mm horizontal wires and 40-mm vertical wires for 28 skulls imaged in 3 positions Absolute value of Difference* difference†Wire Skullorientation side Measurement 2D 3D 2D 3DHorizontal Left Mean error (mm) Ϫ0.28 0.18 0.5 0.34 % error 1.4% 0.9% 2.5% 1.7% SD (0.58) (0.38) (0.39) (0.23) Right Mean error (mm) Ϫ0.20 0.03 0.47 0.19 % error 1.0% 0.2% 2.4% 1.0% SD (0.56) (0.24) (0.34) (0.14)Vertical Left Mean error (mm) Ϫ0.47 Ϫ0.23 0.56 0.25 % error 1.2% 0.6% 1.4% 0.6% SD (0.50) (0.23) (0.39) (0.19) Right Mean error (mm) Ϫ0.50 Ϫ0.36 0.61 0.37 % error 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% SD (0.60) (0.26) (0.47) (0.23)2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional.*Average of 84 measurements (measurement in imageϪknown length).† Average of 84 measurements |measurement in imageϪknown length|.Table VI. Skull landmarks: comparison of differences between two-dimensional and three-dimensional measure-ments of gonion-mental foramen (G-MF) and condylion-gonion (C-G) distances for 25 skulls imaged in 3 positions Absolute value of Difference* difference† SkullLandmarks side Measurement 2D 3D 2D 3DG-MF Left Mean error (mm) 1.66 1.26 1.77 1.37 % error 3.0% 2.3% 3.2% 2.5% SD (1.78) (1.28) (1.68) (1.15) Right Mean error (mm) 0.26 0.13 0.97 0.96 % error 0.5% 0.2% 1.7% 1.7% SD (1.34) (1.33) (0.95) (0.92)C-G Left Mean error (mm) Ϫ2.1 Ϫ1.89 2.12 1.94 % error Ϫ3.7% Ϫ3.4% 3.8% 3.5% SD (1.24) (1.27) (1.21) (1.19) Right Mean error (mm) Ϫ1.13 Ϫ0.96 1.3 1.21 % error Ϫ2.0% Ϫ1.7% 2.3% 2.2% SD (1.05) (1.13) (0.83) (0.84)G-MF, gonion-mental foramen; C-G, condylion-gonion.*Average of 75 measurements (measurement in imageϪskull length).† Average of 75 measurements |measurement in imageϪskull length|.Ϯ0.5 mm. In addition, partial volume averaging may Measuring features within a reconstructed imagereduce the visibility of a structure within an image layer is analogous to making measurements on conven-layer. This would tend to result in underestimation of tional transmission radiographs such as cephalometricthe edges of structures such as cortical bone surfaces or or panoramic images. While predictable anatomic dis-the orthodontic wire ends measured in this study. Al- tortions due to projection geometry and panoramic im-though primary and secondary slice reconstruction age layer formation characteristics are present, theirthickness will also inﬂuence measurement, narrower effect on actual anatomic structures is dependent on theslices should result in better measurement accuracy. shape and orientation of the structure. Because of this,Measurement of wire markers in this study suggest that true anatomical variation or asymmetry in a patient maythe NewTom 9000 performed well in providing vol- be difﬁcult to distinguish from projective distortion inumes that are relatively free from distortion in vertical the image. Cone beam computed tomography volumesand horizontal dimensions. provide the radiologist with the ﬂexibility of choosing
OOOOEVolume 103, Number 4 Ludlow et al. 541the orientation of reconstructed image layer. The oper- difﬁculty in using three-dimensional tools to measureator has the advantage of constructing the image layer anatomic points that have traditionally been deﬁnedafter studying a volume of axial slices. In this way, the using two-dimensional image techniques and tools. Theimage layer can be adapted to the anatomy of interest. three-dimensional measurement tool in the NewTom But the image layer may not fully conform to the software was more accurate than the two-dimensionalanatomy in all directions. Panoramic image layers in tool for measuring distances where landmarks werethis study were mapped using representative axial deﬁned by visually unambiguous points such as theslices. Generation of the reformatted panoramic image ends of orthodontic wires. However, the absence of anextended the mapping perpendicular to the axial slice angle measurement tool that could be used in a three-through the complete stack of axial slices. To be sure dimensional volume restricted the operator’s ability tothat relevant anatomy was contained in the panoramic ﬁnd an analogous point for gonion, which had beenview, a ﬁnite image layer of 15 or 20 mm was chosen. readily deﬁned using lines and angles on the two-This means that anatomy anywhere within the image dimensional plane of a panoramic image. New measur-layer would be projected in the displayed panoramic ing tools must be developed if clinicians are to take fullimage on lines parallel to the axial slice plane and advantage of the accuracy promised by three-dimen-perpendicular to the mapping line. For a linear ana- sional measurements of CBCT volumes. At the sametomic feature such as an orthodontic wire, oriented at time, orthodontists need to reassess the deﬁnition ofan angle with respect to the reconstruction axis (the axis cephalometric landmarks that have been described inis perpendicular to the axial slice), and in a plane terms of planar projections of sagittal and coronal anat-perpendicular to the panoramic mapping line, the image omy. These deﬁnitions may need to be modiﬁed forof the feature will appear smaller than the feature’s measurement in three-dimensional volumes. New ana-actual size. This size reduction will be a function of the tomic landmarks and reference planes may need to becosine of the angle formed by the feature with respect adopted to take full advantage of the measurementto the reconstruction axis. Angular deviations less than accuracy and diagnostic potential afforded by CBCT18° result in image size reductions less than 5%. imaging. The situation in measuring gonion-mental foramen is The standard deviations for differences in repeatedsomewhat different. The panoramic image layer ap- skull measurements of 0.85 mm for posterior mandib-proximates the curve of the mandible between gonion ular height and 0.6 mm gonion-mental foramen indicateand the mental foramen. However, the caliper measure- less precision in measurement of skeletal dimensionsment of gonion-mental foramen on the skull represents than was seen with measurement of wire dimensionsa straight line, which is a secant to the curve repre- with three-dimensional measurement techniques. Thissented by the panoramic image layer. Based on the variability is largely due to the difﬁculty in determiningpreceding theoretical arguments, it would be expected gonion. The modiﬁed angle-bisecting tool used in thisthat two-dimensional measurements of a panoramic study was subject to parallax errors in positioning aimage layer would overestimate gonion-mental fora- pencil within the bisector groove of the tool to markmen distances and underestimate condylion-gonion dis- gonion (Fig. 1). It should be noted that systematictances. This is supported by the data seen in Table VI. errors in locating skull gonion related to the use of theThe measurement errors seen with two-dimensional angle-bisecting tool would have a detrimental impacttechniques are reduced with three-dimensional mea- on image measurements. The possibility of such ansurement techniques. The small measurement errors error is suggested by the interobserver differences inseen with two-dimensional measurement techniques in skull measurement where posterior-mandibular heightthis study suggest that the chosen anatomic points and was overestimated and gonion-mental foramen was un-reference wires had acceptably small deviations from derestimated by an average of 0.9 mm by observer B.the plane of the panoramic reconstruction. Experience in making measurements may also play a Unlike two-dimensional measurements within a re- role in interobserver and intraobserver variability. Itconstructed image layer, three-dimensional measure- might be anticipated that the less-experienced observerments are made between points within a volume and B would have greater variability in measurements.thus are not subject to projective distortion. The chal- Wire measurement accuracy using the three-dimen-lenge arises in deﬁning and selecting the points to be sional measuring tool is comparable to the accuracymeasured. When CBCT images were measured with reported by Marmulla and coauthors,15 who used anthe three-dimensional tool, it was not possible to locate acrylic phantom. The mean absolute error of 0.13 mmgonion in the axial slice without referencing the pan- and standard deviation of 0.09 mm in that study com-oramic image layer where the gonial angle was calcu- pares with mean absolute errors of 0.29 mm and stan-lated and bisected. This problem is an illustration of the dard deviation of 0.20 mm in this study. The use of a
OOOOE542 Ludlow et al. April 2007computer algorithm to localize measurement points metry in panoramic radiographic images. Dentomaxillofacwith pixel fractionalization in the former study versus Radiol 2005;34:343-9. 2. Tronje G, Eliasson S, Julin P, Welander U. Image distortion inobserver selection of measurement points by using rotational panoramic radiography. II. Vertical distances. Actamouse manipulation of a cursor in this study may be the Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981;22:449-55.principle reason for the approximately twofold differ- 3. Habets LL, Bezuur JN, van Ooij CP, Hansson TL. The ortho-ence in measurement accuracy. pantomogram, an aid in diagnosis of temporomandibular joint Variations in skull positioning were incorporated problems. I. The factor of vertical magniﬁcation. J Oral Rehabil 1987;14:475-80.into the design of this study because skull position has 4. Kjellberg H, Ekestubbe A, Kiliaridis S, Thilander B. Condylarbeen demonstrated to be a factor in measurement ac- height on panoramic radiographs. A methodologic study with acuracy for conventional radiographic imaging and has clinical application. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:43-50.been cited as an important factor in false-positive and 5. Turp JC, Vach W, Harbich K, Alt KW, Strub JR. Determiningfalse-negative diagnosis of mandibular asymmetry in mandibular condyle and ramus height with the help of an Orthopantomogram–a valid method? J Oral Rehabil 1996;panoramic imaging.1 Farman16 has argued that the best 23:395-400.of modern panoramic units may permit a posteriori 6. Xie Q, Soikkonen K, Wolf J, Mattila K, Gong M, Ainamo A.adjustments to compensate both for patient position and Effect of head positioning in panoramic radiography on verticalfor differences in arch shape and tooth contact angula- measurements: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radioltions in the maxilla and mandible. But this argument 1996;25:61-6. 7. Catic A, Celebic A, Valentic-Peruzovic M, Catovic A, Jerolimovignores the difﬁculty in distinguishing distortion result- V, Muretic I. Evaluation of the precision of dimensional mea-ing from nonideal patient positioning from distortion surements of the mandible on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surgresulting from skeletal asymmetry. It also overlooks the Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:242-8.difﬁculty in incorporating ﬁducial landmarks on the 8. Mckee IW, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Majorpatient so that images and measurements can be ad- PW. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Anglejusted after the fact when asymmetry is present. The Orthod 2001;71:442-51.results of the current study indicate that difﬁculties 9. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy ofassociated with patient positioning and uncertainties of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographsmeasurement accompanying patient asymmetry in pan- taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:43-52.oramic images are not present in CBCT images. 10. Cavalcanti MG, Haller JW, Vannier MW. Three-dimensional computed tomography landmark measurement in craniofacial surgical planning: experimental validation in vitro. J Oral Max-CONCLUSIONS illofac Surg 1999;57:690-4. A number of conclusions are suggested by the results 11. Lo LJ, Lin WY, Wong HF, Lu KT, Chen YR. Quantitativeof this study. In contrast to current plane projection measurement on three-dimensional computed tomography: an(cephalometric) and image layer (panoramic) tech- experimental validation using phantom objects. Chang Gungniques, measurements of anatomy in CBCT volumes Med J 2000;23:354-9. 12. Maki K, Inou N, Takanishi A, Miller AJ. Computer-assistedexamined in this study were relatively uninﬂuenced by simulations in orthodontic diagnosis and the application of a newskull orientation. As is commonly reported for ad- cone beam X-ray computed tomography. Orthod Craniofac Resvanced imaging and complex measurement tasks, op- 2003;6(Suppl 1):95-101.erator experience has a positive effect on measurement 13. Vannier MW. Craniofacial computed tomography scanning:accuracy and reproducibility. For well-deﬁned points, technology, applications and future trends. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6(Suppl 1):23-30.measurement accuracy was expressed by average errors 14. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy ofless than 1.2% for two-dimensional measurement tech- linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomographyniques and less than 0.6% for three-dimensional mea- (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291-4.surement techniques. While the measured features and 15. Marmulla R, Wörtche R, Mühling J, Hassfeld S. Geometricmeasurement techniques differed from previous stud- accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:28-31.ies, average measurement errors from 0.2 mm to 2.1 16. Farman AG. Panoramic radiographic images and the predictionmm are in line with errors reported for both conven- of asymmetry Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:129.tional and cone beam CT.14,17 With the appropriate 17. Cavalcanti MG, Vannier MW. Quantitative analysis of spiralchoice and deﬁnition of landmarks, and the availability computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications.of three-dimensional measuring tools, this accuracy has Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27:344-50.the potential of providing unambiguous information fordiagnosis of skeletal asymmetry, longitudinal monitor- Reprint requests:ing of growth, and postsurgical assessment. John B. Ludlow, DDS, MS 120 Dental Ofﬁce Bldg.REFERENCES UNC School of Dentistry 1. Laster WS, Ludlow JB, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450 measurements of mandibular anatomy and prediction of asym- firstname.lastname@example.org