Cranial symmetry assessment through cone-beam CT images


  • Oswaldo Vasconcellos Vilella Universidade Federal Fluminense
  • Eduardo Kant Rothier Universidade Federal Fluminense
  • Beatriz Souza Vilella Universidade Federal Fluminense



Cephalometry, skull, facial asymmetry, tomography.


Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the right and the left sides of symmetrical individuals´ skull through images generated by cone-beam computed tomography (cbct).
Methods: The sample consisted of 35 scans from the 3d-i-cat (imaging sciences international inc., hatfield, usa) of 13 male and 22 female individuals, aged between 8 and 64, who showed acceptable facial symmetry. The images were entered into the invivodental 5.0 software (anatomage, san jose, usa) and positioned analogously to the patient´s head posture to get a lateral cephalometric radiography. Go-me, go-cd, s-cd, co-gn, and co-a linear distances (mm);, fma, and gogn. sn angles (degrees), as well as five condyle-glenoid fossa linear distances (mm) were the bilateral variables analyzed.
Results: Statistically significant difference between the right and the left sides was only verified when s-cd (mm) was assessed.
Conclusion: therefore, there is no need to obtain bilateral values of these variables (except s-cd) to assess the skull of individuals with no evident asymmetries. In relation to s-cd variable, the difficulty to mark the sella point (s) in a 3-dimensional study created inexistent discrepancies between the right and the left condyles position.

Author Biographies

Oswaldo Vasconcellos Vilella, Universidade Federal Fluminense

Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics

Eduardo Kant Rothier, Universidade Federal Fluminense

Master Course Student, Department of Orthodontics

Beatriz Souza Vilella, Universidade Federal Fluminense

Adjunct Professor, Department of Orthodontics


Cevidanes L, Styner M, Proffit W. Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:611-18.

Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multislice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:410-6.

Ferrario VF, Serrao G, Ciusa V, Morini M, Sforza C. Cephalometric and in vivo measurements of maxillomandibular anteroposterior discrepancies: A preliminary regression study. Angle Orthod 2002;72:579-84.

Kumar V, Ludlow J, Cevidanes L, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78: 873-79.

Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D Hjortshøj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomographygenerated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134: 798-802.

Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:229-43.

Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radio 2005;56:413-7.

Cha J, Mah J, Sinclair P. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial area with 3-dimensional cone-beam imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:7-14.

Mah J, Hatcher D. Three-dimensional craniofacial imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:308-9.

Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F, Hausamen J-E. Three-dimensional cephalometry. Berlin: Springer GmbH; 2006. 365p.

Oliveira AEF, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:256-65.

Berco M, Rigali PH, Matthew M, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from conebeam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 2009;136:17.e1-17.e9.

Togashi K, Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Yashida N, Nakamura T. Three dimensional cephalometry using helical computer tomography: Measurement error caused by head inclination. Angle Orthod 2002;72:513-20.

Rossi M, Ribeiro E, Smith R. Craniofacial asymmetry in development: An anatomical study. Angle Orthod 2003;73:381-85.

Cevidanes LHS, Franco AA, Gerig G, Proffit WR, Slice, DE, Enlow DH, et al. Assessment of mandibular growth and response to orthopedic treatment with 3-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:16-26.

Kim Y, Hong J, Hwang Y, Park Y. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway in preadolescent children with different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:306.e1-306.e11.

Farman A, Scarfe W. Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130: 257-65.

Masuoka N, Muramatso A, Ariji Y, Nawa H, Goto s, Ariji E. Discriminative thresholds of cephalometric indexes in the subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;131:609-13.

Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D. Angle Orthod 2009;79: 150–57.

Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.

Dawson P E. Evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of occlusal problems. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1989. 633p.

Hicks ST, Wood DP. Recording condylar movement with two facebow systems. Angle Orthod 1996;66:293-300.

Braun S, Marcotte MR, Freudenthaler JW, Hönigle K. An evaluation of condyle position in centric relation obtained by manipulation of the mandible with and without leaf gauge deprogramming. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:34-37.

Bishara S, Burkey P, Kharouf J. Dental and facial asymmetries – a review. Angle Orthod 1994;64:89-98.

Shah S, Joshi M. An assesment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod. 1978;48:141-8.






Original Article