Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On imaging modalities for cephalometric analysis: a review

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cephalometrics is an integral part of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. It has been extensively used to study variation in human face and craniofacial growth. Cephalometrics is an established and valuable tool to assess outcome of orthodontic and orthognathic surgical procedures, follow up and relapse. Cephalometric has also been used a research instrument for huge number of investigations. Cephalometric measurement techniques has progressed over the years from a manual tracing of analog X-Ray film over acetate tracing sheets to the modern practice of on-screen computerized cephalometric analysis on a digital two-dimensional (2-D) image. Cephalometric analysis can also be performed on-screen on image derived from CT scans or CBCT. Each imaging modality is associated with its own quality features of the X-Ray image, and radiation protocol. The objective of this review was to critically analyze diagnostic limitations associated with three types of imaging modality being used for cephalometric analyses. These limitations can vary in terms of accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, reliability, feasibility of craniofacial landmark localization and radiation exposure to patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC (2004) Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126:397–409

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U (1986) The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 8:141–148

    Google Scholar 

  3. Available (n.d.) http://www.instrumentariumdental.com

  4. Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baumrind S, Miller DM (1980) Computer-aided head film analysis: the University of California san Francisco method. Am J Orthod 78:41–65

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA (2013) New three-dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 43:62–73

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA (2009) Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:17–18

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bholsithi W, Tharanon W, Chintakanon K, Komolpis R, Sinthanayothin C (2009) 3D vs. 2D cephalometric analysis comparisons with repeated measurements from 20 Thai males and 20 Thai females. Biomed Imaging Interv J 5:1

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2009) Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 79:150–157

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B (2008) Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134:798–802

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cevidanes L, Oliveira AE, Motta A, Phillips C, Burke B, Tyndall D (2009) Head orientation in CBCT-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod 79:971–977

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cevidanes LH, Oliveira AE, Grauer D, Styner M, Proffit WR (2011) Clinical application of 3D imaging for assessment of treatment outcomes. Semin Orthod 17:72–80

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chau ACM, Wong RWK, Hagg U (2010) 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomographic cephalometric database on jaw dimensions in Chinese. Open Anthropol 3:2–7

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cheung LK, Chan YM, Jayaratne YS, Lo J (2011) Three-dimensional cephalometric norms of Chinese adults in Hong Kong with balanced facial profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112:12

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, Al-Kutoub A, Laster LL, Ghafari J (2002) Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofacial Res 5:104–113

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chien P, Parks E, Eraso F, Hartsfield J, Roberts W, Ofner S (2009) Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 38:262–273

    Google Scholar 

  17. Couceiro CP, Vilella ODV (2010) Imagens em 2D e 3D geradas pela TC Cone-Beam e radiografias convencionais: qual a mais confiável? Dental Press J Orthod 15:40–41

    Google Scholar 

  18. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2011) Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:e107–e114

    Google Scholar 

  19. de Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D (2009) Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:256–265

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dibbets JM, Nolte K (2002) Effect of magnification on lateral cephalometric studies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:196–201

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dot G, Schouman T, Chang S, Rafflenbeul F, Kerbrat A, Rouch P, et al. (2022) "Automatic Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmarking via Deep Learning," medRxiv, p. 2022.01.28.22269989

  22. Downs WB (1948) Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 34(10):812–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(48)90015-3

  23. Farman AG, Scarfe WC (2006) Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:257–265

    Google Scholar 

  24. Farronato G, Perillo L, Bellincioni F, Briguglio F, Farronato D, Dominici AD (2012) Direct 3D cephalometric analysis performed on CBCT. J Inf Technol Software Eng 2:107–1–107-3

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fuyamada M, Nawa H, Shibata M, Yoshida K, Kise Y, Katsumata A et al (2011) Reproducibility of landmark identification in the jaw and teeth on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Angle Orthod 81:843–849

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Heulfe I, Harmon ET, Zhu H et al (2010) Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod 80:286–294

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gray CF (2010) Practice-based cone-beam computed tomography: a review. Prim Dent Care 17:161–167

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greiner M, Greiner A, Hirschfelder U (2007) Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. J Orofac Orthop 68:290–298

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Manzi FR, Brooks SL, McNamara JA Jr (2011) From 2D to 3D: an algorithm to derive normal values for 3-dimensional computerized assessment. Angle Orthod 81(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.2319/032910-173.1

  30. Gupta A (2019) "Current research opportunities of image processing and computer vision," Comput Sci; Vol 20, No 4, https://doi.org/10.7494/csci.2019.20.4.3163

  31. Gupta A (2020) Challenges for computer aided diagnostics using X-ray and Tomographic reconstruction images in craniofacial applications. Int J Comput Vis Robot 10:360–371

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gupta A (2022) "RegCal: registration-based calibration method to perform linear measurements on PA (posteroanterior) cephalogram- a pilot study," Multimed Tools Appl, 2022/07/12

  33. Gupta A (2022) "A lightweight deep neural network implemented on MATLAB without using GPU for the automatic monitoring of the plants," Multimed Tools Appl

  34. Gupta A, Kharbanda O, Sardana V, Balachandran R, Sardana H (2015) A knowledge-based algorithm for automatic detection of cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(11):1737–1752

  35. Gupta A, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Balachandran R, Sardana HK (2016) Accuracy of 3D cephalometric measurements based on an automatic knowledge-based landmark detection algorithm. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:1297–1309

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gupta A, Kharbanda OP, Balachandran R, Sardana V, Kalra S, Chaurasia S et al (2017) Precision of manual landmark identification between as-received and oriented volume-rendered cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 151:118–131

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta A, Sardana HK, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V (2019) "Method for automatic detection of anatomical landmarks in volumetric data," US Patent US10318839B2, 11–06-2019

  38. Halazonetis DJ (2005) From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:627–637

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hanzelka T, Foltan R, Horka E, Sedy J (2010) Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan. Med Hypotheses 75:610–612

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 31:129–134

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hassan B, Nijkamp P, Verheij H, Tairie J, Vink C, van der Stelt P et al (2013) Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Eur J Orthod 35:38–44

    Google Scholar 

  42. Holberg C, Steinhauser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I (2005) Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444

    Google Scholar 

  43. Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E (2009) Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European academy of dental and maxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:187–195

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibragimov B, Likar B, Pernus F, Vrtovec T (2016) "Computerized Cephalometry by game theory with shape-and appearance-based landmark refinement,"

  45. Kang SH, Jeon K, Kim H-J, Seo JK, Lee S-H (2020) Automatic three-dimensional cephalometric annotation system using three-dimensional convolutional neural networks: a developmental trial. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Visual 8:210–218

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kang SH, Jeon K, Kang S-H, Lee S-H (2021) 3D cephalometric landmark detection by multiple stage deep reinforcement learning. Sci Rep 11:17509

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr (2011) The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:24–34

    Google Scholar 

  48. Katkar RA, Kummet C, Dawson D, Moreno Uribe L, Allareddy V, Finkelstein M, Ruprecht A (2013) Comparison of observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on subject images from Galileos and i-CAT cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:5

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kau CH, Richmond S, Palomo JM, Hans MG (2005) Current Products and Practice: Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. J Orthod 32:282–293

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kim SG, Yi WJ, Hwang SJ, Choi SC, Lee SS, Heo MS, Huh KH, Kim TI, Hong H, Yoo JH (2012) Development of 3D statistical mandible models for cephalometric measurements. Imaging Sci Dent 42:175–182

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kim J-H, An S, Hwang D-M (2022) Reliability of cephalometric landmark identification on three-dimensional computed tomographic images. British J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:320–321

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S (1997) Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 34:111–116

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L (2007) Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:263–269

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A (2008) In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 78:873–879

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lagravere MO, Gordon JM, Guedes IH, Flores-Mir C, Carey JP, Heo G et al (2009) Reliability of traditional cephalometric landmarks as seen in three-dimensional analysis in maxillary expansion treatments. Angle Orthod 79:1047–1056

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lagravere MO, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey JP, Heo G et al (2010) Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:598–604

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lamichane M, Anderson NK, Rigali PH, Seldin EB, Will LA (2009) Accuracy of reconstructed images from cone-beam computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:156–157

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lecomber AR, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock DJ, Hosoi T, Adams AM (2001) Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30:255–259

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lee H, Park M, Kim J (2017) Cephalometric landmark detection in dental x-ray images using convolutional neural networks vol. 10134: SPIE

  60. Lee SM, Kim HP, Jeon K, Lee S-H, Seo JK (2019) Automatic 3D cephalometric annotation system using shadowed 2D image-based machine learning. Phys Med Biol 64:055002

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lee J-H, Yu H-J, Kim M-j, Kim J-W, Choi J (2020) Automated cephalometric landmark detection with confidence regions using Bayesian convolutional neural networks. BMC Oral Health 20:270

    Google Scholar 

  62. Liedke GS, Delamare EL, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, Prietsch JR, Dutra V et al (2012) Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:136–142

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lindner C, Wang C-W, Huang C-T, Li C-H, Chang S-W, Cootes TF (2016) Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms. Sci Rep 6:33581

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lofthag-Hansen S (2009) Cone beam computed tomography radiation dose and image quality assessments. Swed Dent J Suppl 209:4–55

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lopes PM, Moreira CR, Perrella A, Antunes JL, Cavalcanti MG (2008) 3-D volume rendering maxillofacial analysis of angular measurements by multislice CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 105:224–230

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG (2007) Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:534–542

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A (2009) Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:312–313

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ma Q, Kobayashi E, Fan B, Nakagawa K, Sakuma I, Masamune K et al (2020) Automatic 3D landmarking model using patch-based deep neural networks for CT image of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robot 16:e2093

    Google Scholar 

  69. Maken P, Gupta A (2022) "2D-to-3D: a review for computational 3D image reconstruction from X-ray images," Arch Comput Methods Eng, 2022/07/22

  70. Martin CJ (2007) Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 80:639–647

    Google Scholar 

  71. Montúfar J, Romero M, Scougall-Vilchis RJ (2018) Automatic 3-dimensional cephalometric landmarking based on active shape models in related projections. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 153:449–458

    Google Scholar 

  72. Montúfar J, Romero M, Scougall-Vilchis RJ (2018) Hybrid approach for automatic cephalometric landmark annotation on cone-beam computed tomography volumes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 154:140–150

    Google Scholar 

  73. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG (2009) Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:430–436

    Google Scholar 

  74. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2007) Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:550–560

    Google Scholar 

  75. Naji P, Alsufyani NA, Lagravère MO (2013) "Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT," Angle Orthod

  76. Nalcaci R, Ozturk F, Sokucu O (2010) A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:100–106

    Google Scholar 

  77. Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, Rana SS, Sardana HK (2017) A pilot study for segmentation of pharyngeal and sino-nasal airway subregions by automatic contour initialization. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:1877–1893

    Google Scholar 

  78. Neelapu BC, Sardana HK, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S (2018) "Method And System For Automatic Volumetric-Segmentation Of Human Upper Respiratory Tract," US Patent US10699415B2

  79. Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, Sardana HK (2018) Automatic localization of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images by extracting symmetry features of the skull. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 47:20170054

    Google Scholar 

  80. Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana HK, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R et al The reliability of different methods of manual volumetric segmentation of pharyngeal and sinonasal subregions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 124:577–587

  81. Nervina JM (2012) Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Aust Dent J 1:95–102

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ngan DC, Kharbanda OP, Geenty JP, Darendeliler MA (2003) Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J 19:67–75

    Google Scholar 

  83. Nur M, Kayipmaz S, Bayram M, Celikoglu M, Kilkis D, Sezgin OS (2012) Conventional frontal radiographs compared with frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 82:579–584

    Google Scholar 

  84. Olmez H, Gorgulu S, Akin E, Bengi AO, Tekdemir I, Ors F (2011) Measurement accuracy of a computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis and a conventional two-dimensional method. Angle Orthod 81:375–382

    Google Scholar 

  85. Olszewski R, Cosnard G, Macq B, Mahy P, Reychler H (2006) 3D CT-based cephalometric analysis: 3D cephalometric theoretical concept and software. Neuroradiology 48:853–862

    Google Scholar 

  86. Olszewski R, Reychler H, Cosnard G, Denis JM, Vynckier S, Zech F (2008) Accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) craniofacial cephalometric landmarks on a low-dose 3D computed tomograph. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:261–267

    Google Scholar 

  87. Olszewski R, Tanesy O, Cosnard G, Zech F, Reychler H (2010) Reproducibility of osseous landmarks used for computed tomography based three-dimensional cephalometric analyses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38(3):214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.05.005

  88. Olszewski R, Frison L, Wisniewski M, Denis JM, Vynckier S, Cosnard G, Zech F, Reychler H (2013) Reproducibility of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks in cone-beam and low-dose computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 17:285–292

    Google Scholar 

  89. Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N (2011) Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40(8):492–500. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15644321

  90. Park SH, Yu HS, Kim KD, Lee KJ, Baik HS (2006) A proposal for a new analysis of craniofacial morphology by 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:e23–e34

    Google Scholar 

  91. Park CS, Park JK, Kim H, Han SS, Jeong HG, Park H (2012) Comparison of conventional lateral cephalograms with corresponding CBCT radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent 42(4):201–205. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.201

  92. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K, SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81(2):267–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028

  93. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395

    Google Scholar 

  94. Qian J, Cheng M, Tao Y, Lin J, Lin H (2019) "CephaNet: An Improved Faster R-CNN for Cephalometric Landmark Detection," in 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019), pp. 868–871

  95. Ramirez-Sotelo LR, Almeida S, Ambrosano GM, Boscolo F (2012) Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements performed in full and hemifacial reconstructions derived from cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 82:827–832

    Google Scholar 

  96. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80

    Google Scholar 

  97. Schendel SA, Lane C (2009) 3D orthognathic surgery simulation using image fusion. Semin Orthod 15:48–56

    Google Scholar 

  98. Schlicher W, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Hatcher DC, Miller AJ (2012) Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans. Eur J Orthod 34:263–275

    Google Scholar 

  99. Shahidi S, Bahrampour E, Soltanimehr E, Zamani A, Oshagh M, Moattari M et al (2014) The accuracy of a designed software for automated localization of craniofacial landmarks on CBCT images. BMC Med Imaging 14:1471–2342

    Google Scholar 

  100. Song Y, Qiao X, Iwamoto Y, Chen Y-w (2020) Automatic cephalometric landmark detection on X-ray images using a deep-learning method. Appl Sci 10:2547

    Google Scholar 

  101. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, Christensen J, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A (2013) Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:27

    Google Scholar 

  102. Spolyar JL (1987) Head Positioning Error in Cephalometric Radiography. Angle Orthod 57:77–88

    Google Scholar 

  103. Swennen GR, Schutyser F (2006) Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130:410–416

    Google Scholar 

  104. Swennen GR, Schutyser F, Barth EL, De Groeve P, De Mey A (2006) A new method of 3-D cephalometry part I: the anatomic Cartesian 3-D reference system. J Craniofac Surg 17:314–325

    Google Scholar 

  105. Titiz I, Laubinger M, Keller T, Hertrich K, Hirschfelder U (2012) Repeatability and reproducibility of landmarks--a three-dimensional computed tomography study. Eur J Orthod 34:276–286

    Google Scholar 

  106. Tomasi C, Bressan E, Corazza B, Mazzoleni S, Stellini E, Lith A (2011) Reliability and reproducibility of linear mandible measurements with the use of a cone-beam computed tomography and two object inclinations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:244–250

    Google Scholar 

  107. Torosdagli N, Liberton DK, Verma P, Sincan M, Lee JS, Bagci U (2019) Deep geodesic learning for segmentation and anatomical Landmarking. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 38:919–931

    Google Scholar 

  108. Trivedi M, Gupta A (2022) A lightweight deep learning architecture for the automatic detection of pneumonia using chest X-ray images. Multimed Tools Appl 81:5515–5536

    Google Scholar 

  109. Tulunoglu O, Esenlik E, Gulsen A, Tulunoglu I (2011) A comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional cephalometric evaluations of children with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Dent 5(4):451–458.

  110. Tweed CH (1953) Evolutionary trends in orthodontics, past, present, and future. Am J Orthod 39:81–108

    Google Scholar 

  111. van Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2009) Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(1):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.04.025

  112. Vandaele R, Aceto J, Muller M, Péronnet F, Debat V, Wang C-W et al (2018) Landmark detection in 2D bioimages for geometric morphometrics: a multi-resolution tree-based approach. Sci Rep 8:538

    Google Scholar 

  113. Wang S, Li H, Li J, Zhang Y, Zou B (2018) Automatic Analysis of Lateral Cephalograms Based on Multiresolution Decision Tree Regression Voting. J Healthcare Eng 2018:1797502

    Google Scholar 

  114. Williams FL, Richtsmeier JT (2003) Comparison of mandibular landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer data. Clin Anat 16:494–500

    Google Scholar 

  115. Wu MC, Cheng KS, Chen YT, Liu JK, Ting WH (2010) Three-dimensional analysis of biplanar cephalograms. Eur J Orthod 32:627–632

    Google Scholar 

  116. Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N (2010) Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod 81:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  117. Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N (2011) Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod 81:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  118. Yoon YJ, Kim KS, Hwang MS, Kim HJ, Choi EH, Kim KW (2001) Effect of head rotation on lateral cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod 71:396–403

    Google Scholar 

  119. Yu S-H, Nahm D-S, Baek S-H (2008) Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133:790.e1–790.e6

    Google Scholar 

  120. Yue W, Yin D, Li C, Wang G, Xu T (2006) Automated 2-D cephalometric analysis on X-ray images by a model-based approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:1615–1623

    Google Scholar 

  121. Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V (2012) A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17(4):e678–e688. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17721

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author would like to acknowledge Dr. H. K. Sardana and Dr. Viren Sardana from CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh, and Dr. Rajiv Balachandran and Dr. O. P. Kharbanda from AIIMS-CDER, New Delhi for providing their insights to write a review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomedical Application Division, CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Chandigarh, 160030, India

    Abhishek Gupta

Authors
  1. Abhishek Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the submitted work is a part of the work submitted to the University for the Award of a degree.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, A. On imaging modalities for cephalometric analysis: a review. Multimed Tools Appl 82, 36837–36858 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-14971-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-14971-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation