Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 9, 2026
Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
Published on: February 23, 2024
Precision of manual landmark identification between as-received and oriented volume-rendered cone-beam computed
Abhishek Gupta1, Om Prakash Kharbanda2, Rajiv Balachandran3
1Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) Campus, Chandigarh, India.
Introduction:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the orientation of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images on the precision and reliability of 3-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification.
Methods:
Ten CBCT scans were used for manual landmark identification. Volume-rendered images were oriented by aligning the Frankfort horizontal and transorbital planes horizontally, and the midsagittal plane vertically. A total of 20 CBCT images (10 as-received and 10 oriented) were anonymized, and 3 random sets were generated for manual landmark plotting by 3 expert orthodontists. Twenty-five landmarks were identified for plotting on each anonymized image independently. Hence, a total of 60 images were marked by the orthodontists. After landmark plotting, the randomized samples were decoded and regrouped into as-received and oriented data sets for analysis and comparison. Means and standard deviations of the x-, y-, and z-axis coordinates were calculated for each landmark to measure the central tendency. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to analyze the interobserver reliability of landmark plotting in the 3 axes in both situations. Paired t tests were applied on the mean Euclidean distance computed separately for each landmark to evaluate the effect of 3-dimensional image orientation.
Results:
Interobserver reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, >0.9) was excellent for all 25 landmarks for the x-, y-, and z-axes on both before and after orientation of the images. Paired t test results showed insignificant differences for the orientation of volume-rendered images for all landmarks except 3: R1 left (P = 0.0138), sella (P = 0.0490), and frontozygomatic left (P = 0.0493). Also midline structures such as Bolton and nasion were plotted more consistently or precisely than bilateral structures.
Conclusions:
Orientation of the CBCT image does not enhance the precision of landmark plotting if each landmark is defined properly on multiplanar reconstruction slices and rendered images, and the clinician has sufficient training. The consistency of landmark identification is influenced by their anatomic locations on the midline, bilateral, and curved structures.
