Estudio comparativo de an?lisis cefalom?tricos extra?dos de im?genes 2D y 3D

Abstract

[Espa?ol] Objetivo: Determinar si existen discrepancias de los valores cefalom?tricos de las radiograf?as laterales de cr?neo convencionales y las obtenidas mediante una Tomograf?a Axial Computarizada de Haz C?nico. Metodolog?a: Se seleccionaron 51 expedientes por conveniencia que cumpl?an los criterios de inclusi?n y exclusi?n, del Centro Radiogr?fico de Im?genes Digitales que conten?an una Radiograf?a Lateral de Cr?neo y la Tomograf?a Axial Computarizada de Haz C?nico. A cada expediente se le asign? un c?digo con la finalidad de salvaguardar la identidad de cada paciente. Para obtener la imagen bidimensional cef?lica lateral de las Tomograf?as Axial Computarizada de Haz C?nico se emple? el software tomogr?fico Planmeca Romexis Viewer. Donde se seleccion? en la barra de herramientas la opci?n de ?cef?lica virtual? y se export? la imagen. Posteriormente, tanto la imagen cef?lica lateral obtenida de la Tomograf?a Axial Computarizada de Haz C?nico como la Radiograf?a Lateral de Cr?neo se ingresan al software Dolphin Imaging 9.0, donde se realizaron los pasos para de esa manera poder obtener los resultados de los an?lisis cefalom?tricos... Todo ese proceso se realiz? en las im?genes de la CBCT y Radiograf?a Lateral de Cr?neo. Luego de dos semanas, se volvieron a realizar la medici?n de los trazados cefalom?tricos del 60% de la muestra, la cual fue seleccionada al azar. Resultados: Se pudo comprobar la confiabilidad y la concordancia entra las t?cnicas de im?genes diagn?sticas LAT y CBCT en los distintos an?lisis cefalom?tricos, exceptuando en el cefalograma de Jarabak, donde hubo una diferencia estad?sticamente significativa, sin embargo, cl?nicamente no es relevante. Conclusi?n: No existen discrepancias significativas en los valores cefalom?tricos entre las radiograf?as laterales de cr?neo convencionales y las obtenidas mediante una Tomograf?a Axial Computarizada de Haz C?nico.

[English] Objective: To determine if there are discrepancies between the cephalometric values of conventional lateral skull radiographs and those obtained by Conical Beam Computed Tomography. Methodology: 51 files were selected for convenience that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, from the Digital Imaging Radiographic Center that contained a Lateral Skull X-ray and Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Each file was assigned a code in order to safeguard the identity of each patient. Planmeca Romexis Viewer tomographic software was used to obtain the lateral cephalic two-dimensional image of the Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Where the "virtual cephalic" option was selected in the toolbar and the image was exported. Subsequently, both the lateral cephalic image obtained from the Cone Beam Computed Tomography and the Lateral Skull X-ray are entered into the Dolphin Imaging 9.0 software, where the steps were taken to obtain the results of the Steiner cephalometric analysis, McNamara, Ricketts, and Jarabak. All this process was carried out in the images of the CBCT and Lateral X-ray of the Skull. After two weeks, the measurement of the cephalometric tracings of 60% of the sample, which was randomly selected, was performed again. Results: It was possible to verify the reliability and concordance between the diagnostic imaging techniques LAT and CBCT in the different cephalometric analyses, except for the Jarabak cephalogram, where there was a statistically significant difference, however, it is not clinically relevant. Conclusion: There are no significant discrepancies in the cephalometric values between conventional lateral skull radiographs and those obtained by Cone Beam Computed Tomography.