Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients

15Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if an automated superimposition method using six landmarks (Sella, Nasion, Porion, Orbitale, Basion, and Pterygoid) would be more suitable than the traditional Sella- Nasion (SN) method to evaluate growth changes. Materials and Methods: Serial lateral cephalograms at an average interval of 2.7 years were taken on 268 growing children who had not undergone orthodontic treatment. The T1 and T2 lateral images were manually traced. Three different superimposition methods: Björk's structural method, conventional SN, and the multiple landmark (ML) superimposition methods were applied. Bjork's structural method was used as the gold standard. Comparisons among the superimposition methods were carried out by measuring the linear distances between Anterior Nasal Spine, point A, point B, and Pogonion using each superimposition method. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors that could affect the accuracy of the superimpositions. Results: The ML superimposition method demonstrated smaller differences from Björk's method than the conventional SN method did. Greater differences among the cephalometric landmarks tested resulted when: the designated point was farther from the cranial base, the T1 age was older, and the more time elapsed between T1 and T2. Conclusions: From the results of this study in growing patients, the ML superimposition method seems to be more similar to Björk's structural method than the SN superimposition method. A major advantage of the ML method is likely to be that it can be applied automatically and may be just as reliable as manual superimposition methods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, M. G., Moon, J. H., Hwang, H. W., Cho, S. J., Donatelli, R. E., & Lee, S. J. (2022). Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients. Angle Orthodontist, 92(2), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.2319/010121-1.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free