Objectives: Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) allows the possibility of modifying some of the diagnostic tools used in orthodontics, such as cephalometry. The first step must be to study the characteristics of these devices in terms of accuracy and reliability of the most commonly used landmarks. The aims were 1- To assess intra and inter-observer reliability in the location of anatomical landmarks belonging to hard tissues of the skull in images taken with a CBCT device, 2- To determine which of those landmarks are more vs. less reliable and 3- To introduce planes of reference so as to create cephalometric analyses appropriated to the 3D reality. Study design: Fifteen patients who had a CBCT (i-CAT®) as a diagnostic register were selected. To assess the reproducibility on landmark location and the differences in the measurements of two observers at different times, 41 landmarks were defined on the three spatial axes (X,Y,Z) and located. 3.690 measurements were taken and, as each determination has 3 coordinates, 11.070 data were processed with SPSS® statistical package. To discover the reproducibility of the method on landmark location, an ANOVA was undertaken using two variation factors: time (t1, t2 and t3) and observer (Ob1 and Ob2) for each axis (X, Y and Z) and landmark. The order of the CBCT scans submitted to the observers (Ob1, Ob2) at t1, t2, and t3, were different and randomly allocated. Multiple comparisons were undertaken using the Bonferroni test. The intra- and inter-examiner ICC´s were calculated. Results: Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was high, both being ICC ≥ 0.99, with the best frequency on axis Z. Conclusions: The most reliable landmarks were: Nasion, Sella, Basion, left Porion, point A, anterior nasal spine, Pogonion, Gnathion, Menton, frontozygomatic sutures, first lower molars and upper and lower incisors. Those with less reliability were the supraorbitals, right zygion and posterior nasal spine.

New noninvasive techniques, amongst them structured light methods, have been applied to study rachis deformities, providing a way to evaluate external back deformities in the three planes of space. These methods are aimed at reducing the number of radiographic examinations necessary to diagnose and follow-up patients with scoliosis. By projecting a grid over the patient’s back, the corresponding software for image treatment provides a topography of the back in a color or gray scale. Visual inspection of back topographic images using this method immediately provides information about back deformity, but it is important to determine quantifier variables of the deformity to establish diagnostic criteria. In this paper, two topographic variables [deformity in the axial plane index (DAPI) and posterior trunk symmetry index (POTSI)] that quantify deformity in two different planes are analyzed. Although other authors have reported the POTSI variable, the DAPI variable proposed in this paper is innovative. The upper normality limit of these variables in a nonpathological group was determined. These two variables have different and complementary diagnostic characteristics, therefore we devised a combined diagnostic criterion: cases with normal DAPI and POTSI (DAPI ≤ 3.9% and POTSI ≤ 27.5%) were diagnosed as nonpathologic, but cases with high DAPI or POTSI were diagnosed as pathologic. When we used this criterion to analyze all the cases in the sample (56 nonpathologic and 30 with idiopathic scoliosis), we obtained 76.6% sensitivity, 91% specificity, and a positive predictive value of 82%. The interobserver, intraobserver, and interassay variability were studied by determining the variation coefficient. There was good correlation between topographic variables (DAPI and POTSI) and clinical variables (Cobb’s angle and vertebral rotation angle).

Objective: To assess whether the values of different measurements taken on three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are comparable with those taken on two-dimensional (2D) images from conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) and to examine if there are differences between the different types of CBCT software when taking those measurements. Material and Methods: Eight patients were selected who had both an LRC and a CBCT. The 3D reconstructions of each patient in the CBCT were evaluated using two different software packages, NemoCeph 3D and InVivo5. An observer took 10 angular and 3 linear measurements on each of the three types of record on two different occasions. Results: Intraobserver reliability was high except for the mandibular plane and facial cone (from the LCR), the Na-Ans distance (using NemoCeph 3D), and facial cone and the Ans-Me distance (using InVivo5). No statistically significant differences were found for the angular and linear measurements between the LCRs and the CBCTs for any measurement, and the correlation levels were high for all measurements. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between the angular and linear measurements taken with the LCR and those taken with the CBCT. Neither were there any statistically significant differences between the angular or linear measurements using the two CBCT software packages.