Abstract
Objective
Methods
Results
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Dry human skull used in this study. The risk of errors during the process of three-dimensional cephalogram construction is minimized by the attachment of titanium fiducial markers to anatomical landmarks prior to the acquisition of radiographs. Description of landmarks are shown in the Table 1.
![kjod-48-292-g001](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-g001.jpg)
Figure 2
The biplanar imaging system used in this study. Two instrumentariums were positioned at a 90° angle and two arrays of X-ray beams were simultaneously projected toward the subject with the head posture remaining identical for both lateral and frontal cephalogram acquisition.
![kjod-48-292-g002](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-g002.jpg)
Figure 3
The three-dimensional (3D) Ceph™ program (Department of Orthodontics, University of Chicago, IL, USA) used in this study. A and B, Input of lateral and frontal cephalograms into the 3D Ceph™ program. C, Landmark correction using vector intercept with manual or averaging algorithm in the 3D Aligner™ program (Department of Orthodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA). D, Generation of a three-dimensional cephalometric image using the “create 3D frame” function and measurement output using the “3D log” function in the program.
![kjod-48-292-g003](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-g003.jpg)
Figure 4
Bland–Altman plots for the comparison of three-dimensional (3D) cephalograms constructed from biplanar radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.
![kjod-48-292-g004](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-g004.jpg)
Table 2
Comparison between CBCT-generated cephalograms and 3D cephalograms constructed from conventional cephalograms
![kjod-48-292-i002](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-i002.jpg)
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
CBCT, Cone-beam computed tomography; 3D, three dimensional; cephconv, 3D cephalogram by conventional radiography; cephcbct, 3D cephalogram by CBCT; rt, right; lt, left; post, posterior; inf, inferior.
Significance was determined by the paired t-test.
Descriptions of landmarks are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Table 3
Comparison between CBCT-generated cephalograms and 3D cephalograms constructed from biplanar cephalograms
![kjod-48-292-i003](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-i003.jpg)
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
CBCT, Cone-beam computed tomography; 3D, three dimensional; cephbiplanar, 3D cephalogram by biplanar imaging system; cephcbct, 3D cephalogram by CBCT; rt, right; lt, left; post, posterior; inf, inferior.
Significance was determined by the paired t-test.
Descriptions of landmarks are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Table 4
Bland–Altman analysis of the accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from conventional cephalograms
![kjod-48-292-i004](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1123kjod/kjod-48-292-i004.jpg)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Notes
References
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)