Assessing the length of the mandibular ramus and the condylar process: a comparison of OPG, CBCT, CT, MRI, and lateral cephalometric measurements
Assessing the length of the mandibular ramus and the condylar process: a comparison of OPG, CBCT, CT, MRI, and lateral cephalometric measurements
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ejo/cju008
复制
发表时间：
2015-02-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Kellenberger, Christian J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Markic, Goran;Mueller, Lukas;Kellenberger, Christian J.
背景/目的：比较不同的成像方法[锥束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）、计算机断层扫描（CT）、磁共振成像（MRI）、正体层扫描（OPG）和侧位头测术（LC）]评估下颌高度[支高（RH）]和髁突（CondProc）长度反映下颌生长情况。材料/方法：采用CBCT、CT、MRI、OPG、LC测量8具尸体头部（每侧）的RH和CondProc。它们由两个独立的观察者测量两次，平行于下颌分支的后缘。用类内相关系数（ICC）来评估观察者之间和观察者内部的信度。用变异系数来说明精度。Bland-Altman （BA）图用于评估程序与观察者内部和观察者之间测量值之间的一致性。结果：除LC外，所有程序均表现出良好的观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性（最大一致性范围：5.3 mm）和出色的可靠性（ICC > 0.9）。CondProc和RH的BA图分析显示MRI， CT和CBCT之间的一致范围相似（最大6.4 mm），但OPG和LC的范围更高。MRI和OPG值普遍较小。结论/意义：当用于测量CondProc和RH时，所有3D成像程序产生的结果几乎相同。MRI是推荐的，因为它避免了电离辐射，在检测炎症方面有更高的灵敏度。所有3D成像方法都应考虑随访期间检测生长的2年阈值。由于公布了每年增量的参考值，因此建议在随访髁突生长时测量RH。
Background/Objectives: To compare different imaging procedures [cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), orthopantomography (OPG), and lateral cephalometry (LC)] for assessing the mandibular height [ramus height (RH)] and condylar process (CondProc) length as they reflect mandibular growth.Materials/Methods: The RH and CondProc of eight cadaver heads (each side separately) were measured using CBCT, CT, MRI, OPG, and LC. They were measured twice by two independent observers parallel to the posterior border of the mandibular ramus. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the inter-and intraobserver reliability. The coefficient of variation was used to elucidate precision. Bland-Altman (BA) plots were used to assess the agreement between the procedures and the intra-and interobserver measurements.Results: All procedures, with the exception of LC, showed good intra-and interobserver agreement (maximum range of agreement: 5.3 mm) and excellent reliability (ICC > 0.9). The BA plot analysis for the CondProc and RH showed similar ranges of agreement between MRI, CT, and CBCT (maximum 6.4 mm) but higher ranges for OPG and LC. The MRI and OPG values were generally smaller.Conclusions/Implications: All 3D imaging procedures yielded nearly equal results when used to measure the CondProc and RH. MRI is recommended because it avoids ionizing radiation and has higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammation. A 2-year threshold for detecting growth in the follow-up period should be taken into account for all 3D imaging methods. Measuring the RH is recommended for the follow-up of condylar growth because reference values for annual increments are published.