journal article·2020-11-10Open access

Effects of Changes in the Frankfort Horizontal Plane Definition on the Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Evaluation of Symmetry

Utkarsh Mangal, Jae Joon Hwang, Heon Jo, Sung Min Lee, Yun-Hoa Jung, Bong-Hae Cho, Jung-Yul Cha, Sung-Hwan Choi

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 22

Abstract

The plane formed by the intersection of bilateral porions (PoR and PoL) and left orbitale (OrL) is conventionally defined as the Frankfort horizontal (FH) plane. We aim to test the influence of the FH plane definition on a 3D cephalometric assessment. We selected 38 adult patients (20 males, 18 females; average age: 22.87 ± 5.17 years) without any gross asymmetry from retrospective records and traced and analyzed their cone-beam computed tomographic images. The findings were categorized into the following four groups: FH1: conventional; FH2: PoR, PoL, right orbitale (OrR); FH3: OrR, OrL, PoL; FH4: OrR, OrL, PoR. The average menton (Me) deviation from the MSP was statistically significant for the FH1 group (0.56 ± 0.27 mm; p < 0.001), compared to the FH3 (1.37 ± 1.23 mm) and FH4 (1.33 ± 1.16 mm) groups. The spatial orientation level (SOL) of the FH plane showed a marked difference (p < 0.05) between the FH2 (0.602° ± 0.503°) and FH4 (0.944° ± 0.778°) groups. The SOL of the MSP was comparatively small (p < 0.001) for FH2 (0.015° ± 0.023°) in comparison to both FH 3 (0.644° ± 0.546°) and FH 4 (0.627° ± 0.516°). Therefore, the FH plane definition can significantly influence the interpretation of cephalometric findings. Future studies should focus on standardization to improve the reliability and reproducibility of 3D cephalometry.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Radiography and Imaging · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea

HDXWILL, Seoul 03162, Korea

BK21 PLUS Project, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea

Funding

A grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. Craniofacial reference plane variation and natural head position10.1093/ejo/cjn031 ↗
2. Asymmetry assessment using cone beam ct. A class i and class ii patient comparison10.2319/041711-271.1 ↗
3. Influence of different setups of the frankfort horizontal plane on 3-dimensional cephalometric measurements10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.023 ↗
4. Cheng, Y., Leow, W.K., and Lim, T.C. (2012, January 9–11). Automatic identification of frankfurt plane and mid-sagittal plane of skull. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Workshop on the Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Breckenridge, CO, USA.
5. Theoretical basis for virtual skull orientation according to three-dimensional frankfort horizontal plane for computer-aided surgical simulation10.1097/SCS.0000000000005595 ↗
6. Swennen, G.R., Schutyser, F.A., and Hausamen, J.-E. (2005). Three-Dimensional Cephalometry: A Color Atlas and Manual, Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/3-540-29011-7 ↗
7. Maxillary yaw as the primary predictor of maxillary dental midline deviation: 3d analysis using cone-beam computed tomography10.1016/j.joms.2012.07.043 ↗
8. Head orientation in cbct-generated cephalograms10.2319/090208-460.1 ↗
9. Lin, H.H., Chuang, Y.F., Weng, J.L., and Lo, L.J. (2015). Comparative validity and reproducibility study of various landmark-oriented reference planes in 3-dimensional computed tomographic analysis for patients receiving orthognathic surgery. PLoS ONE, 10.10.1371/journal.pone.0117604 ↗
10. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different cbct- and msct-based 3d images: An in vitro study10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5 ↗
11. Use of the orbito-occipital line as an alternative to the frankfort line10.5115/acb.19.136 ↗
12. Frankfort horizontal plane is an appropriate three-dimensinal reference in the evaluation of clinical and skeletal cant10.5125/jkaoms.2013.39.2.71 ↗
13. Landmarks of the frankfort horizontal plane: Reliability in a three-dimensional cartesian coordinate system10.1007/s00056-016-0045-1 ↗
14. Selection of a horizontal reference plane in 3d evaluation: Identifying facial asymmetry and occlusal cant in orthognathic surgery planning10.1038/s41598-017-02250-w ↗
15. Evaluation of facial hard and soft tissue asymmetry using cone-beam computed tomography10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.038 ↗
16. Linear accuracy of cone beam ct derived 3d images10.2319/122407-599.1 ↗
17. Analysis of facial asymmetry10.7181/acfs.2015.16.1.1 ↗
18. A frontal asymmetry analysis
19. Change of lip-line cant after 1-jaw orthognathic surgery in patients with mandibular asymmetry10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.060 ↗
20. Three-dimensional frankfort horizontal plane for 3d cephalometry: A comparative assessment of conventional versus novel landmarks and horizontal planes10.1093/ejo/cjx066 ↗
21. Kapila, S.D. (2014). Protocols for the use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontic practice. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics: Indications, Insights, and Innovations, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118674888 ↗
22. Center, O.B.M. (2020, September 29). Ncrp: Achievements of the Past 50 Years and Addressing the Needs of the Future. Available online: https://ncrponline.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/PDFs/PROGRAM_2-10.pdf.
23. Deviation of landmarks in accordance with methods of establishing reference planes in three-dimensional facial ct evaluation10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.207 ↗
24. Challenges in measuring angles between craniofacial structures10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0380 ↗
25. Method for quantifying facial asymmetry in three dimensions using stereophotogrammetry
26. Comparison of different midsagittal plane configurations for evaluating craniofacial asymmetry by expert preference10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.04.024 ↗
27. Evaluation of 2 different reference planes used for the study of asymmetric facial malformations10.1097/SCS.0b013e318190ddd3 ↗
28. Diagnosis and surgical outcomes of facial asymmetry according to the occlusal cant and menton deviation10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.028 ↗
29. Mandibular asymmetries and associated factors in orthodontic and orthognathic surgery patients10.2319/111517-785.1 ↗
30. Facial asymmetry: A current review10.1590/2177-6709.20.6.110-125.sar ↗