Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Dec;45(4):213-20.
doi: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.213. Epub 2015 Dec 17.

Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study

Ana Paula Reis Durão  1 , Aline Morosolli  2 , Pisha Pittayapat  3 , Napat Bolstad  4 , Afonso P Ferreira  5 , Reinhilde Jacobs  6
Affiliations

Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study

Ana Paula Reis Durão et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim this study was to compare the accuracy of orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists in identifying 17 commonly used cephalometric landmarks, and to determine the extent of variability associated with each of those landmarks.

Materials and methods: Twenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by two groups of dental specialists, and 17 cephalometric landmarks were identified. The x and y coordinates of each landmark were recorded. The mean value for each landmark was considered the best estimate and used as the standard. Variation in measurements of the distance between landmarks and measurements of the angles associated with certain landmarks was also assessed by a subset of two observers, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were evaluated.

Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were excellent for intraobserver agreement, but only good for interobserver agreement. The least reliable landmark for orthodontists was the gnathion (Gn) point (standard deviation [SD], 5.92 mm), while the orbitale (Or) was the least reliable landmark (SD, 4.41 mm) for dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Furthermore, the condylion (Co)-Gn plane was the least consistent (SD, 4.43 mm).

Conclusion: We established that some landmarks were not as reproducible as others, both horizontally and vertically. The most consistently identified landmark in both groups was the lower incisor border, while the least reliable points were Co, Gn, Or, and the anterior nasal spine. Overall, a lower level of reproducibility in the identification of cephalometric landmarks was observed among orthodontists.

Keywords: Analysis; Anatomic Landmarks; Cephalometry; Orthodontics; Reliability and Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Cephalometric landmarks used in the study. N, nasion; Or, orbitale; S, sella; Co, condylion; Po, porion, PNS, posterior nasal spine; ANS, anterior nasal spine; A, point A; UIA, upper incisor apex; UIB, upper incisor border; LIB, lower incisor border; LIA, lower incisor apex; B, point B; Pog, pogonion; Gn, gnathion; Me, menton; Go, gonion.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Example of a lateral cephalometric radiograph with the identification of landmarks by two observers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1:45–66.
    1. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:111–127. - PubMed
    1. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW, Yao CC, Chang HF. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:301–306. - PubMed
    1. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:569–578. - PubMed
    1. Miloro M, Borba AM, Ribeiro-Junior O, Naclério-Homem MG, Jungner M. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:445–453. - PubMed