Measurement error and reliability of three available 3D superimposition methods in growing patients

• Published in: Head & face medicine 2020-01, Vol.16 (1), p.1-1, Article 1
• Main Authors: Ponce-Garcia, Cecilia, Ruellas, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira, Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares, Flores-Mir, Carlos, Carey, Jason P, Lagravere-Vich, Manuel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; CAT scans; Cephalometry; Child; Clinical outcomes; Cone beam computed tomography; Dental Care; Dentistry; Dolphins (Mammals); Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Marine mammals; Measurement; Methods; Orthodontics; Patients; Registration; Reproducibility of Results; Software; Spreadsheet software; Three-dimensional superimposition; Tomography; Tooth - diagnostic imaging
• ISSN: 1746-160X; 1746-160X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13005-020-0215-7

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images can be superimposed, allowing three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of craniofacial growth/treatment effects. Limitations of 3D superimposition techniques are related to imaging quality, software/hardware performance, reference areas chosen, and landmark points/volumes identification errors. The aims of this research are to determine/compare the intra-rater reliability generated by three 3D superimposition methods using CBCT images, and compare the changes observed in treated cases by these methods. Thirty-six growing individuals (11-14 years old) were selected from patients that received orthodontic treatment. Before and after treatment (average 24 months apart) CBCTs were analyzed using three superimposition methods. The superimposed scans with the two voxel-based methods were used to construct surface models and quantify differences using SlicerCMF software, while distances in the landmark-derived method were calculated using Excel. 3D linear measurements of the models superimposed with each method were then compared. Repeated measurements with each method separately presented good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC ≥ 0.825). ICC values were the lowest when comparing the landmark-based method and both voxel-based methods. Moderate to excellent agreement was observed when comparing the voxel-based methods against each other. The landmark-based method generated the highest measurement error. Findings indicate good to excellent intra-examiner reliability of the three 3D superimposition methods when assessed individually. However, when assessing reliability among the three methods, ICC demonstrated less powerful agreement. The measurements with two of the three methods (CMFreg/Slicer and Dolphin) showed similar mean differences; however, the accuracy of the results could not be determined.