The aims of this study were (1) to determine the three-dimensional anatomical boundaries of the alveolar bone defect in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients, (2) to precisely translate these anatomical boundaries into reliable cephalometric landmarks and planes that can be used for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis, (3) to standardize image acquisition and reconstruction parameters, and (4) to test the reproducibility of the proposed protocol for measuring the predefined alveolar bone defect, using a third-party software.
Methods
The alveolar bone defect volume of 10 randomly selected patients with unilateral CLP (UCLP) aged 8 years and 6 months to 11 years and 2 months was evaluated on preoperative and 1-year postoperative CBCT scans using a semiautomatic, standardized protocol. The alveolar bone graft outcome was calculated as a percentage of the bone fill using the formula (VOLpre – VOLpost)/VOLpre) × 100. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed.
Results
Intra- and interobserver reproducibility was excellent for volumes and bone fill as no statistically significant difference (P < .001) was seen between the different sets of measurements, and Pearson correlation coefficients were large (intraobserver: r > .9849, interobserver: r > .8784). The Bland-Altman plots indicated that the differences between the plots were not patterned.
Conclusions
Volume determination using CBCT, third-party medical image processing software, and the presently defined image acquisition and reconstruction parameters, including anatomical boundaries, is a reproducible and practical method for assessing the volumetric outcome of secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with UCLP.
AbyholmF.E., BerglandO., SembG.Secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts: a surgical/orthodontic treatment enabling a non-prosthodontic rehabilitation in cleft lip and palate patients.Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg.1981; 15: 127–140.
2.
AhlqvistJ., EliassonS., WelanderU.The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements.Eur J Orthod.1986; 8: 141–148.
3.
AlbuquerqueM.A., GaiaB.F., CavalcantiM.G.Comparison between multislice and cone-beam computerized tomography in the volumetric assessment of cleft palate.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2011; 112: 249–257.
4.
AmirlakB., TangC.J., BeckerD., PalomoJ.M., GosainA.K.Volumetric analysis of simulated alveolar cleft defects and bone grafts using cone beam computed tomography.Plast Reconstr Surg.2013; 131: 854–859.
5.
AngelopoulosC.Cone beam tomographic imaging anatomy of the maxillofacial region.Dent Clin North Am.2008; 52: 731–52, vi.
6.
BaumrindS., FrantzR.C.The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification.Am J Orthod.1971a; 60: 111–127.
7.
BaumrindS., FrantzR.C.The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures.Am J Orthod.1971b; 60: 505–517.
8.
BerglandO., SembG., AbyholmF.E.Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment.Cleft Palate J.1986; 23: 175–205.
9.
BlandJ.M., AltmanD.G.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet.1986; 1: 307–310.
10.
CattaneoP.M., MelsenB.The use of cone-beam computed tomography in an orthodontic department in between research and daily clinic.World J Orthod.2008; 9: 269–282.
11.
ChoiH.S., ChoiH.G., KimS.H., ParkH.J., ShinD.H., JoD.I., KimC.K., UhmK.I.Influence of the alveolar cleft type on preoperative estimation using 3D CT assessment for alveolar cleft.Arch Plast Surg.2012; 39: 477–482.
12.
DahlbergG.Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students.New York: Interscience Publications;1940.
13.
DielemanF.J., TumpP., BaartJ.A., TuinzingD.B., BezemerP.D.A computed tomographic evaluation of change in bone volume after secondary bone grafting over the first postoperative year.Plast Reconstr Surg.2004; 114: 738–742.
14.
DraenertF.G., GebhartF., NeugebauerC., CoppenrathE., Mueller-LisseU.Imaging of bone transplants in the maxillofacial area by NewTom 9000 cone-beam computed tomography: a quality assessment.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2008; 106: e31–e35.
15.
ElH., PalomoJ.M.Measuring the airway in 3 dimensions: a reliability and accuracy study.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2010; 137: S50.e1–9.
16.
EnemarkH., Sindet-PedersenS., BundgaardM.Long-term results after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1987; 45: 913–919.
17.
EnlowD.H., BangS.Growth and remodeling of the human maxilla.Am J Orthod.1965; 51: 446–464.
18.
EppleyB.L., SadoveA.M.Management of alveolar cleft bone grafting—state of the art.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 229–233.
19.
FeichtingerM., ZemannW., MossbockR., KarcherH.Three-dimensional evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a 3D- navigation system based on computed tomography: a two-year follow-up.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2008; 46: 278–282.
HamadaY., KondohT., NoguchiK., IinoM., IsonoH., IshiiH., MishimaA., KobayashiK., SetoK.Application of limited cone beam computed tomography to clinical assessment of alveolar bone grafting: a preliminary report.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 128–137.
22.
KearnsG., PerrottD.H., SharmaA., KabanL.B., VargervikK.Placement of endosseous implants in grafted alveolar clefts.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997; 34: 520–525.
23.
KindelanJ.D., NashedR.R., BromigeM.R.Radiographic assessment of secondary autogenous alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997; 34: 195–198.
24.
LagravereM.O., CareyJ., Ben-ZviM., PackotaG.V., MajorP.W.Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit.Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2008; 37: 305–308.
25.
LiljaJ., MollerM., FriedeH., LauritzenC., PettersonL.E., JohansonB.Bone grafting at the stage of mixed dentition in cleft lip and palate patients.Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg.1987; 21: 73–79.
26.
LongREJr., SpanglerB.E., YowM.Cleft width and secondary alveolar bone graft success.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1995; 32: 420–427.
27.
MelsenB., MelsenF.The postnatal development of the palatomaxillary region studied on human autopsy material.Am J Orthod.1982; 82: 329–342.
28.
OberoiS., ChigurupatiR., GillP., HoffmanW.Y., VargervikK.Volumetric assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using cone beam computed tomography.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2009; 46: 503–511.
29.
OberoiS., GillP., ChigurupatiR., HoffmanW.Y., HatcherD.C., VargervikK.Three-dimensional assessment of the eruption path of the canine in individuals with bone-grafted alveolar clefts using cone beam computed tomography.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2010; 47: 507–512.
30.
PauwelsR., NackaertsO., BellaicheN., StamatakisH., TsiklakisK., WalkerA., BosmansH., BogaertsR., JacobsR., HornerK; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations.Br J Radiol.2013; 86: 20120135.
SchlicherW., NielsenI., HuangJ.C., MakiK., HatcherD.C., MillerA.J.Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans.Eur J Orthod.2012; 34: 263–275.
33.
Schultze-MosgauS., NkenkeE., SchlegelA.K., HirschfelderU., WiltfangJ.Analysis of bone resorption after secondary alveolar cleft bone grafts before and after canine eruption in connection with orthodontic gap closure or prosthodontic treatment.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2003; 61: 1245–1248.
34.
SheskinD.J.Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC;2011.
35.
ShirotaT., KurabayashiH., OguraH., SekiK., MakiK., ShintaniS.Analysis of bone volume using computer simulation system for secondary bone graft in alveolar cleft.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2010; 39: 904–908.
36.
Spin-NetoR., MarcantonioEJr., GotfredsenE., WenzelA.Exploring CBCT-based DICOM files: a systematic review on the properties of images used to evaluate maxillofacial bone grafts.J Digit Imaging.2011; 24: 959–966.
37.
TaiC.C., SutherlandI.S., McFaddenL.Prospective analysis of secondary alveolar bone grafting using computed tomography.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2000; 58: 1241–1249.
38.
WaitzmanA.A., PosnickJ.C., ArmstrongD.C., PronG.E.Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: part II. Normal values and growth trends.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 118–128.
39.
WitherowH., CoxS., JonesE., CarrR., WaterhouseN.A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002; 39: 255–260.
40.
World Medical Association.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.JAMA.2013; 310: 2191–2194.
41.
YamashinaA., TanimotoK., SutthiprapapornP., HayakawaY.The reliability of computed tomography (CT) values and dimensional measurements of the oropharyngeal region using cone beam CT: comparison with multidetector CT.Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2008; 37: 245–251.
42.
ZamoraN., LlamasJ.M., CibrianR., GandiaJ.L., ParedesV.A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal.2012; 17: e678–e688.
43.
ZhangW., ShenG., WangX., YuH., FanL.Evaluation of alveolar bone grafting using limited cone beam computed tomography.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.2012; 113: 542–548.
