Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography for mandibular morphometry

• Autorzy: Tassoker M. , Akin D. , Kabakci A.A.D. , Sener S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the morphological differences in the mandible between patients with six age groups and to detect the correlation between these parameters on panoramic radiography (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: A total of 121 subjects (50 males and 71 females) were included in the study and were divided into six age groups (10–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60–69) on the basis of the chronological age. CBCT and PR methods were used to record the mandibular measurements for the same 121 patients. Differences between male and female mandibular morphometric measurements, between right and left side measurements, and differences in age subgroups compared by using independent samples t-test, paired samples t-test, and one-way ANOVA test, respectively. P < 0.05 value was considered statistically significant for all analysis. Results: Males mostly have higher mandibular measurement values. There were statistically significant differences between CBCT and PR measurements (p < 0.05). PR mostly showed higher values than CBCT measurements. Conclusions: Based on the fact that PRs showing significant differences from CBCT in the morphometric measurements made on mandible, it is recommended that forensic doctors and anthropologists consider this information in their age and gender prediction studies. (Folia Morphol 2019; 78, 4: 862–870)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 78
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.862-870,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Tassoker M.

• Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

autor

Akin D.

• Department of Anatomy, Meram Medicine Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

autor

Kabakci A.A.D.

• Department of Anatomy, Meram Medicine Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

autor

Sener S.

• Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. Abu-Taleb N, Beshlawy DEl. Mandibular ramus and gonial angle measurements as predictors of sex and age in an egyptian population sample: a digital panoramic study. J Forensic Res. 2015; 06(05), doi: 10.4172/2157-7145.1000308.
• 2. Al-Shamout R, Ammoush M, Alrbata R, et al. Age and gender differences in gonial angle, ramus height and bigonial width in dentate subjects. Pak Oral Dental J. 2012; 32(1): 81–87.
• 3. Berco M, Rigali PH, Miner RM, et al. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(1): 17.e1–9; discussion 17, doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.021, indexed in Pubmed: 19577142.
• 4. Bhullar MK, Uppal AS, Kochhar GK, et al. Comparison of gonial angle determination from cephalograms and orthopantomogram. Indian J Dent. 2014; 5(3): 123–126, doi: 10.4103/0975-962X.140820, indexed in Pubmed: 25565740.
• 5. Bremke M, Sesterhenn AM, Murthum T, et al. Digital volume tomography (DVT) as a diagnostic modality of the anterior skull base. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009; 129(10): 1106–1114, doi: 10.1080/00016480802620621, indexed in Pubmed: 19117158.
• 6. Chole RH, Patil RN, Balsaraf Chole S, et al. Association of mandible anatomy with age, gender, and dental status: a radiographic study. ISRN Radiol. 2013; 2013: 453763, doi: 10.5402/2013/453763, indexed in Pubmed: 24959560.
• 7. Coquerelle M, Bookstein FL, Braga J, et al. Sexual dimorphism of the human mandible and its association with dental development. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011; 145(2): 192–202, doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21485, indexed in Pubmed: 21365613.
• 8. Damera A, Mohanalakhsmi J, Yellarthi PK, et al. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular ramus for gender estimation: Retrospective study. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2016; 8(2): 74–78, doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.186369, indexed in Pubmed: 27555722.
• 9. Dutra V, Devlin H, Susin C, et al. Mandibular morphological changes in low bone mass edentulous females: evaluation of panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102(5): 663–668, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.02.023, indexed in Pubmed: 17052644.
• 10. Franklin D, Oxnard CE, O’Higgins P, et al. Sexual dimorphism in the subadult mandible: quantification using geometric morphometrics. J Forensic Sci. 2007; 52(1): 6–10, doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00311.x, indexed in Pubmed: 17209902.
• 11. Gamba Td, Alves MC, Haiter-Neto F. Mandibular sexual dimorphism analysis in CBCT scans. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016; 38: 106–110, doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2015.11.024, indexed in Pubmed: 26773251.
• 12. Ghosh S, Vengal M, Pai KM, et al. Remodeling of the antegonial angle region in the human mandible: a panoramic radiographic cross-sectional study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010; 15(5): e802–e807, doi: 10.4317/medoral.15.e802, indexed in Pubmed: 20383108.
• 13. Howe RB. First molar radicular bone near the maxillary sinus: a comparison of CBCT analysis and gross anatomic dissection for small bony measurement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108(2): 264–269, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.021, indexed in Pubmed: 19201631.
• 14. Huumonen S, Sipilä K, Haikola B, et al. Influence of edentulousness on gonial angle, ramus and condylar height. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37(1): 34–38, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02022.x, indexed in Pubmed: 19912483.
• 15. Ingervall B, Thilander B. Relation between facial morphology and activity of the masticatory muscles. J Oral Rehabil. 1974; 1(2): 131–147, indexed in Pubmed: 4525024.
• 16. Izard G. The goniomandibular angle in dentofacial orthopedia. Int J Orthod Oral Surg Radiogr. 1927; 13(7): 578–581, doi: 10.1016/s0099-6963(27)90110-0.
• 17. Kamburoğlu K, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, et al. Accuracy of CBCT measurements of a human skull. J Digit Imaging. 2011; 24(5): 787–793, doi: 10.1007/s10278-010-9339-9, indexed in Pubmed: 20857166.
• 18. Kharoshah MA, Almadani O, Ghaleb SS, et al. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2010; 17(4): 213–215, doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.02.005, indexed in Pubmed: 20382358.
• 19. Leversha J, McKeough G, Myrteza A, et al. Age and gender correlation of gonial angle, ramus height and bigonial width in dentate subjects in a dental school in Far North Queensland. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016; 8(1): e49–e54, doi: 10.4317/jced.52683, indexed in Pubmed: 26855706.
• 20. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, et al. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103(4): 534–542, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.04.008, indexed in Pubmed: 17395068.
• 21. Mağat G, Şener SÖ. The morphological changes in the mandible bone: the effects of age, gender and dental status. Meandros Med Dent J. 2018; 19(2): 111–120, doi: 10.4274/meandros.02886.
• 22. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, et al. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8(9): 1558–1564, indexed in Pubmed: 9866761.
• 23. Nishikawa K, Suehiro A, Sekine H, et al. Is linear distance measured by panoramic radiography reliable? Oral Radiol. 2010; 26(1): 16–19, doi: 10.1007/s11282-010-0038-5.
• 24. Ohm E, Silness J. Size of the mandibular jaw angle related to age, tooth retention and gender. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26(11): 883–891, indexed in Pubmed: 10583739.
• 25. Panneerselvam E, Prasad PJ, Balasubramaniam S, et al. The influence of the mandibular gonial angle on the incidence of mandibular angle fracture: a radiomorphometric study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 75(1): 153–159, doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.08.016, indexed in Pubmed: 27643630.
• 26. Poongodi V, Kanmani R, Anandi MS, et al. Prediction of age and gender using digital radiographic method: A retrospective study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015; 7(Suppl 2): S504–S508, doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.163518, indexed in Pubmed: 26538907.
• 27. Radhakrishnan PD, Sapna Varma NK, Ajith VV. Dilemma of gonial angle measurement: Panoramic radiograph or lateral cephalogram. Imaging Sci Dent. 2017; 47(2): 93–97, doi: 10.5624/isd.2017.47.2.93, indexed in Pubmed: 28680845.
• 28. Rando C, Hillson S, Antoine D. Changes in mandibular dimensions during the mediaeval to post-mediaeval transition in London: a possible response to decreased masticatory load. Arch Oral Biol. 2014; 59(1): 73–81, doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.10.001, indexed in Pubmed: 24169153.
• 29. Raustia AM, Salonen MA. Gonial angles and condylar and ramus height of the mandible in complete denture wearers--a panoramic radiograph study. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24(7): 512–516, indexed in Pubmed: 9250838.
• 30. Rupa KR, Chatra L, Shenai P, et al. Gonial angle and ramus height as sex determinants: A radiographic pilot study. J Craniomax Dis. 2015; 4(2): 111, doi: 10.4103/2278-9588.163247.
• 31. Srineeraja P. Determination of Angle of Mandible from Mandibular Bones and Orthopantomograph. J Pharm Sci Res. 2015; 7(8): 589–581.
• 32. Tozoğlu U, Cakur B. Evaluation of the morphological changes in the mandible for dentate and totally edentate elderly population using cone-beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014; 36(7): 643–649, doi: 10.1007/s00276-013-1241-y, indexed in Pubmed: 24292424.
• 33. Upadhyay RB, Upadhyay J, Agrawal P, et al. Analysis of gonial angle in relation to age, gender, and dentition status by radiological and anthropometric methods. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2012; 4(1): 29–33, doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.99160, indexed in Pubmed: 23087579.
• 34. Xie QF, Ainamo A. Correlation of gonial angle size with cortical thickness, height of the mandibular residual body, and duration of edentulism. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91(5): 477–482, doi: 10.1016/S0022391304001118, indexed in Pubmed: 15153856.
• 35. Yanikoğlu N, Yilmaz B. Radiological evaluation of changes in the gonial angle after teeth extraction and wearing of dentures: a 3-year longitudinal study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105(6): e55–e60, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.02.014, indexed in Pubmed: 18417386.
• 36. Zangouei-Booshehri M, Aghili HA, Abasi M, et al. Agreement between panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs for measuring the gonial angle. Iran J Radiol. 2012; 9(4): 178–182, doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.8444, indexed in Pubmed: 23407613.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0031