Document Type : Original Article


Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics AMC Dental College and Hospital, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, India


Aim: With the increased use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, validation of using radiographic images obtained from CBCT instead of multiple conventional radiographs is needed.  Hence, the present study was designed to assess the differences between cephalometric measurements taken from manual tracings (MT), digitized lateral cephalograms (DLC) and CBCT lateral cephalograms scans
Methods: Conventional lateral cephalograms and CBCT scans from ten subjects from departmental archives were used to assess the three methods: manual tracings, digitized lateral cephalograms, and CBCT lateral cephalograms. Seventeen measurements were evaluated and retraced after a 7-day period. The intra examiner errors was assessed using the paired t test and Dahlberg formula. The Pearson correlation test and ANOVA test evaluated the differences between the methods.
Results: Most of the measurements had intra-examiner reliability in all three methods. Measurements were significant among methods were Y-axis, U1-Apog (degree and mm), U1-NA, L1-NB (degree and mm), L1-Apog, and interincisal angle.
Conclusion: All three methods proved to be reliable and reproducible with minimum error in the measurement of lateral cephalograms. The CBCT scan, advised for complex cases, can be used to generate lateral cephalogram images, which may reduce the need for multiple radiographs, thereby reducing radiation exposure and cost.


Main Subjects

  1. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(3):340-348. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029. PMID: 16979492.
  2. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(6): 798-802. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.008. PMID: 19061807.
  3. Kamath M K, Arun A V. Comparison of cephalometric readings between manual tracing and digital software tracing: A pilot study. Int J Orthod Rehabil. 2016; 7: 135-8. doi: 10.4103/2349-5243.197460.
  4. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(2): 155-161. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074 <0155:TEODIL>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 15132440.
  5. Cevidanes LH, Styner MA, Proffit WR. Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(5):611-618. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.008. PMID: 16679201.
  6. Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, Al-Kutoub A, Laster LL, Ghafari J. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2002;5(2):104-113. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0544. 2002.01170.x. PMID: 12086325.
  7. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):331-340. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.3.331. PMID: 9699411.
  8. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Heulfe I, Harmon ET, Zhu H, et al. Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(2): 286-294. doi: 10.2319/030909-135.1. PMID: 19905853.
  9. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(3):107 114. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.020. PMID: 21889058.
  10. Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(5):627-637. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.004. PMID: 15877045.
  11. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983;83(5):382-390. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6. PMID: 6573846.
  12. Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):11-16. doi: 10.2319/031710-157.1. PMID: 20936949.