Accuracy and repeatability of computer aided cervical vertebra landmarking in cephalogram

Abstract

The accuracy and repeatability of computer aided cervical vertebra landmarking (CACVL) were investigated in cephalogram. 120 adolescents (60 boys, 60 girls) aged from 9.1 to 17.2 years old were randomly selected. Twenty-seven landmarks from the second to fifth cervical vertebrae on the lateral cephalogram were identified. In this study, the system of CACVL was developed and used to identify and calculate the landmarks by fast marching method and parabolic curve fitting. The accuracy and repeatability in CACVL group were compared with those in two manual landmarking groups [orthodontic experts (OE) group and orthodontic novices (ON) group]. The results showed that, as for the accuracy, there was no significant difference between CACVL group and OE group no matter in x-axis or y-axis (P>0.05), but there was significant difference between CACVL group and ON group, as well as OE group and ON group in both axes (P<0.05). As for the repeatability, CACVL group was more reliable than OE group and ON group in both axes. It is concluded that CACVL has the same or higher accuracy, better repeatability and less workload than manual landmarking methods. It’s reliable for cervical parameters identification on the lateral cephalogram and cervical vertebral maturation prediction in orthodontic practice and research.

Keywords

cervical vertebral maturation / fast marching method / parabolic curve fitting / landmark / accuracy / repeatability

References

[1] Flores-MirC., BurgessC.A., ChampneyM.. Correlation of skeletal maturation stages determined by cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist evaluations. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76(1): 1-5

[2] WongR.W., AlkhalH.A., RabieA.B.. Use of cervical vertebral maturation to determine skeletal age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 136(4): 484.e1-6

[3] FudaleiP., BollenA.M.. Effectiveness of the cervical vertebral maturation method to predict postpeak circumpubertal growth of craniofacial structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(1): 59-65

[4] GandiniaP., ManciniM., AndreaniF.. A comparison of hand-wrist bone and cervical vertebral analyses in measuring skeletal maturation. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76(6): 984-989

[5] BaccettiT., FranchiL., McNamaraJ.A.Jr.. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod, 2002, 72(4): 316-323

[6] Lamparski DG. Master of Science Thesis [M]. University of Pittsburgh, 1972

[7] BaccettiT., FranchiL., McNamaraJ.A.Jr.. The cervical vertebral maturation method: some need for clarification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2003, 123(1): 19A-20A

[8] ChenL., LinJ.X., XuT.M.. Quantitative skeletal evaluation based on cervical vertebral maturation: a longitudinal study of adolescents with normal occlusion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 39(7): 653-659

[9] ChenL.L., XuT.M., LinJ.X.. Quantitative cervical vertebral maturation assessment in adolescents with normal occlusion: a mixed longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008, 134(6): 720.e1-720.e7

[10] ChenL., LiuJ., XuT., et al.. Longitudinal study of relative growth rates of the maxilla and the mandible according to quantitative cervical vertebral maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(6): 736

[11] LudlowJ.B., GublerM., CevidanesL.. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: Cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 136(3): 312

[12] SantoroM., JarjouraK., CangialosiT.J.. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006, 129(3): 345-351

[13] LiH., XueZ., GuoL., et al.. Simultaneous consideration of spatial deformation and tensor orientation in diffusion tensor image registration using local fast marching patterns. Inf Process Med Imaging, 2009, 21: 63-75

[14] XuS.G., ZhangY.X., YongJ.H.. A fast sweeping method for computing geodesics on triangular manifolds. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 2010, 32(2): 231-241

[15] PapadopoulosA., FotiadisD.I., CostaridouL.. Improvement of microcallcification cluster detection in mammography utilizing image enhancement techniques. Comput Biol Med, 2008, 38(10): 1045-1055

[16] LiuJ.K., ChenY.T., ChengK.S.. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 118(5): 535-540

[17] YueW., YinD., LiC.. Automated 2-D cephalometric analysis on X-ray images by a model-based approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2006, 53(8): 1615-1623

[18] TrpkovaB., MajorP., PrasadN., et al.. Cephalometric landmark identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1997, 112(2): 165-170

[19] BrochJ., SlagsvoldO., RoslerM.. Error in landmark identification in lateral radiographic headplates. Eur J Orthod, 1981, 3(1): 9-13