Cephalometrics history, evolution, and land marks/orthodontic courses by indian dental academy

Taken from the Angle Orthodontist on CD-ROM (Copyright © 1997 Angle
Orthodontist, Inc.), 1994 No. 4, 299 - 310: Commentary: Skeletal jaw
relationships Martin Fine.
--------------------------------
COMMENTARY
Commentary: Skeletal jaw relationships
Martin Fine, BDS, MSc
Cephalometrics in orthodontic practice is an established diagnostic tool
employed by clinicians worldwide. Conventional cephalometrics has served
orthodontic research and diagnosis since its standardization in 1931.1 It is
only in recent times that conventional cephalometric analysis has become
the subject of increased scientific scrutiny.
The orthodontic literature is replete with different analyses based upon
linear, angular and/or proportional measurement systems. When applied to
cephalometrics, these systems have little rigorous theoretical backing and
are based mainly upon convention.2 In fact, in six decades of cephalometric
usage, there has been relatively little scientific progress in the measurement
of cephalometric form or in the measurement of biological form in general.
The problem areas in cephalometrics can be divided into the following:
1.) Imaging difficulties: the reduction of a complex three-dimensional
craniofacial form into a two-dimensional projection is the first in a cascade
of steps which results in the indiscriminate loss of information in
cephalometry.
2.) Datum point selection: in conventional cephalometics irregular two-
dimensional form is reduced to a handful of datum points. Limited numbers
of datum points provide only a cursory description of craniofacial form,

yielding no data concerning the curvature of boundary outlines,3 resulting in
further indiscriminate data loss.
3) Measurement difficulties: the combination of the loss of the third
dimension and further reduction of data through the use of limited datum
point arrays is compounded by their summarization through inappropriate
measurement techniques.
Linear and angular techniques or their respective ratios are inadequate for
describing cephalometric form.4 Different combinations of datum points
may produce the same angle5 or linear distance.
Also, size and shape parameters cannot be discriminated from traditional
linear and/or angular cephalometric dimensions. Thus a change in the facial
angle or distance between gonion and condylion may reflect a size or shape
change, or more likely varying combinations of size and shape changes.
Conventional cephalometric analysis generally involves a univariate
approach of comparing individual measurements with corresponding
population means. This method is more appropriate for population studies
than for individuals.6 In addition, the variable correlation between different
conventional cephalometric measures renders them unsuitable for univariate
statistical analysis.7 Multivariate techniques are better suited to
cephalometric analysis and allow comparison of an array of measurements
as a whole as opposed to discrete parts.
In addition, the use of multiple discrete measurements in conventional
cephalometrics depends on their subjective analysis. It is difficult, if not
impossible, for a clinician to recount the logical steps made in arriving at a
cephalometric diagnosis from the array of measurements which make up a
conventional analysis.8

If traditional cephalometrics is fraught with so many problems, how has it
been possible for cephalometrics to produce any useful results?
Conventional cephalometric measurements are probably correlated with
more sophisticated forms of measurement to a greater or lesser degree. For
example, a patient with a large mandible (even if differently shaped than a
“normal” mandible) is likely to show increases in most linear measurements
of the mandible. Similarly, a “long face” is usually associated with an
increased vertical dimension.
Dr. Lowe and coworkers have addressed the concerns about conventional
cephalometrics by using a measurement technique (EFF) with a rigorous
scientific basis well-suited to the task of measuring irregular biological
forms. As opposed to the Finite Element Method (FEM, a different
rigorously-based method of measuring biological form) EFF facilitates the
measurement of outline form. They then analyzed the EFF data
appropriately using multivariate statistical techniques.
The difficulty with EFF (and FEM) is that its parameters are difficult to
understand (when compared with the relatively simple conventional
cephalometric measures). For example, we can all picture how the
mandibular plane angle will change as the mandible rotates open. What will
happen to EFF parameters in this scenario? At the present time we simply do
not have enough knowledge to elucidate how EFF parameters might vary to
reflect different skeletal morphological patterns.
One could argue that multivariate analysis will take care of this uncertainty.
However, it is important that the multivariate analysis be provided with
appropriate variables that reflect the important data. For example,
measurements of cranial base form are likely to be less important in
orthodontic A-P skeletal diagnosis than those of maxillo-mandibular form.

This factor can be taken into account by the differential variable weighting,
which can reduce misclassification in Cluster analysis.9–11 In fact, the
decision to include or exclude a variable is in itself a form of weighting.
This paper has taken steps to address fundamental problems in
cephalometrics. This could lead to further research which will provide for
more formal diagnostic techniques and therefore more logical objective
treatment planning.
Orthodontist, Inc.), 1994 No. 6, 447 - 454: Landmark identification error in
posterior anterior cephalometrics Paul W. Major, Donald E. Johnson, Karen
L. Hesse,...
---------------------ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics
Paul W. Major DDS,MSc.,MRCD(C);
Donald E. Johnson DDS,MSc;
Karen L. Hesse BSc.,DDS;
Kenneth E. Glover DDS,MSc.,MRCD(c)
Abstract :
This study was designed to quantify the intraexaminer and interexaminer
reliability of 52 commonly used posterior anterior cephalometric landmarks.
The horizontal and vertical identification errors were determined for a
sample of 33 skulls and 25 patients. The results show that there is a
considerable range in the magnitude of error with different horizontal and

vertical values. Interexaminer landmark identification error was significantly
larger than intraexaminer error for many landmarks. The identification error
was different for the skull sample compared to the patient sample for a
number of landmarks. The relevance of knowing the identification error for
each landmark being considered in a particular application was discussed.
Key Words :
Landmark identification error · Posterior anterior cephalometrics ·
Intraexaminer reliability · Interexaminer reliability
Since the introduction of a standardized method for obtaining skull
radiographs,1 cephalometrics has become one of the major diagnostic tools
in orthodontics.
The posterior anterior cephalogram contains diagnostic information not
readily available from other sources. This information allows the practitioner
to evaluate the width and angulation of the dental arches in relation to their
osseous bases in the transverse plane; evaluate the width and transverse
positions of the maxilla and mandible; evaluate the relative vertical
dimensions of bilateral osseous and dental structures; assess nasal cavity
width; and analyze vertical and/or transverse facial asymmetries.2–7
Regardless of the clinical or research application, it is critical to know the
reliability of the reference landmarks.
Baumrind and Frantz8 point out that there are two general classes of error
associated with cephalometric measurements. The first class of errors are
“projection” errors which arise from the geometry of the radiographic setup.
The fact that the x-ray beam originates from a source which has a finite size
leads to a penumbra effect or optical blurring.9,10 The x-ray beam diverges
as it moves away from the source, which results in an overall magnification
of the object being radiographed and a radial displacement of all points

which are not on the principal axis (central ray). The radiographic image is
distorted as points closer to the film are magnified less than points farther
from the film.
The second general class of landmark errors may be termed “errors of
identification,” and arise due to uncertainty involved in locating specific
anatomic landmarks on the radiograph. The precision with which any
landmark may be identified depends on a number of factors.8,11,12
Landmarks lying on a sharp curve or at the intersection of two curves are
generally easier to identify than points located on flat or broad curves. Points
located in areas of high contrast are easier to identify than points located in
areas of low contrast. Superimposition of other structures, including soft
tissue over the area of the landmark in question, reduces the ease of
identification. Precise written definitions describing the landmark reduces
the chance of interpretation error. Operator experience is an important factor
since increased knowledge of anatomy and familiarity with the radiographic
appearance of the subject reduces interpretive errors.
A literature review concerning the reliability of landmark identification in
posterior anterior cephalometrics revealed only one article, by El-Mangoury
et al.,12 which determined the horizontal, vertical and radial variability of 13
landmarks. They found that each landmark had its own characteristic
noncircular envelope of error, and that the variability is different in the
horizontal and vertical directions. Unfortunately, the majority of posterior
anterior cephalometric analyses use landmarks whose identification error has
not been independently reported.
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of posterior anterior
cephalometric landmarks. Skeletal and dental landmarks to be investigated
were chosen to include those most commonly used in published posterior

anterior cephalometric analyses,13,14–19 and those landmarks which can be
recognized on the posterior anterior cephalogram.20,21,22 Landmark
reliability for cephalograms taken both on dry skulls and living patients were
identified and compared.
Materials and methods
A sample of 33 dry adult skulls from the University of Alberta collection
with intact dentitions and no gross asymmetries were radiographed with a
standardized technique. The source-to-film distance was a constant 160 cm
and the distance from the middle of the earrods to the film was 17.5 cm. A
sample of 25 adult patient posterior anterior cephalograms based on the
absence of obvious skeletal or dental asymmetries, was chosen from
consecutive orthodontic records taken at a private radiology facility. All
patient cephalograms were taken using a Siemans OP10 x-ray machine with
standardized exposure and head positioning with Frankfort Horizontal
parallel to the floor. Source-to-earrod distance was 60 inches and earrod-to-
film distance was 5 inches.
Landmarks were digitized directly off the radiographs using a GP6 Sonic
Digitizer R in conjunction with an IBM-compatible computer and a custom
program developed using Basic TM. An individual coordinate system was
established for each radiograph by including two fiducial points which
consisted of a pinhole placed on each radiograph at the superior and medial
corner of both earrod markers. These two pinholes were digitized first which
enable the digitization program to calculate the slope of the line between the
two pinholes. This value was used as the X-axis of a cartesian coordinate
system. The Y-axis was calculated as the line perpendicular to the X-axis
originating at the midpoint of the line between the two pinholes. This
coordinate system eliminated the orientation of the radiograph on the

viewbox as a variable. Fifty-two commonly used landmarks were then
digitized including 36 bilateral skeletal landmarks.
The following landmarks (Figure 1) were identified on each radiograph:
A. Bilateral skeletal landmarks
1. Greater Wing Superior Orbit (GWSO) - the intersection of the
superior border of the greater wing of the sphenoid bone and lateral orbital
margin.
2. Greater Wing Inferior Orbit (GWI0) - the intersection of the inferior
border of the greater wing of the sphenoid bone and the lateral orbital
margin.
3. Lesser Wing Orbit (LWO) - the intersection of the superior border of
the lesser wing of the sphenoid bone and medial aspect of the orbital margin.
4. Orbitale (O) - the midpoint of the inferior orbital margin.
5. Lateral Orbit (LO) - the midpoint of the lateral orbital margin.
6. Medial Orbit (MO) - the midpoint of the medial orbital margin.
7. Superior Orbit (SO) - the midpoint of the superior orbital margin.
8. Zygomatic Frontal (ZF) - the intersection of the zygomaticofrontal
suture and the lateral orbital margin.
9. Zygomatic (Z) - the most lateral aspect of the zygomatic arch.
10. Foramen Rotundum (FR) - the center of foramen rotundum.
11. Condyle Superior (CS) - the most superior aspect of the condyle.
12. Center Condyle (CC) - the center of the condylar head of the condyle.
13. Mastoid Process (MP) - the most inferior point on the mastoid
process.
14. Malar (M) - the deepest point on the curvature of the malar process of
the maxilla.
15. Nasal Cavity (NC) - the most lateral point on the nasal cavity.

16. Mandible/Occiput (MBO) - the intersection of the mandibular ramus
and the base of the occiput.
17. Gonion (G) - the midpoint on the curvature at the angle of the
mandible (gonion).
18. Antegonial (AG) - the deepest point on the curvature of the antegonial
notch.
B. Midline skeletal landmarks
1. Crista Galli (CG) - the geometric center of the crista galli.
2. Sella Turcica (ST) - the most inferior point on the floor of sella
turcica.
3. Nasal Septum (NSM) - the approximated midpoint on the nasal
septum between crista galli and the anterior nasal spine.
4. Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS) - the center of the intersection of the
nasal septum and the palate.
5. Incisor Point (IPU) - the crest of the alveolus between the maxillary
central incisors.
6. Incisor Point (IPL) - the crest of the alveolus between the mandibular
central incisors.
7. Genial Tubercles (GT) - the center of the genial tubercles of the
mandible.
8. Menton (ME) - the midpoint on the inferior border of the mental
protuberance.
C. Bilateral dental landmarks
1. Maxillary Cuspid (MX3) - the incisal tip of the maxillary cuspid.
2. Maxillary Molar (MX6) - the midpoint on the buccal surface of the
maxillary first molar.
3. Mandibular Cuspid (MD3) - the incisal tip of the mandibular cuspid.

4. Mandibular Molar (MD6) - the midpoint on the buccal surface of the
mandibular first molar.
To determine intraexaminer landmark reliability, each radiograph was
digitized five times by the principle investigator. To avoid operator bias,
radiographs were digitized randomly and no individual radiograph was
digitized more than once in a day. The raw data was examined for any single
digitization which differed from the average of the other four by greater than
10 mm. Digitization of that particular radiograph was repeated, effectively
eliminating any instances where the wrong point was digitized by mistake.
Deviations from each landmark mean value were analyzed to give the
standard deviation of the mean, which was considered to be the landmark
identification error in millimeters.
To determine interexaminer landmark reliability each radiograph was
digitized one time by each of four operators with graduate level training in
cephalometrics. Each operator was provided with written descriptions and
diagrams of the landmark location for reference during digitization
procedures. Data analysis was completed using the procedure outlined for
intraexaminer landmark reliability.
The error of the method was established by repeated digitization of a
precisely defined point which consisted of a pinhole in the radiograph.
Results
A. Reliability of the Method
Reliability is a measure of the reproducibility or, in this case, the closeness
of the recorded coordinates for each particular landmark. In estimating the
reliability of the method, four contributing factors were identified.
1. Radiograph (R) - differences in landmark position between individual
skulls or patients.

2. Position (P) - differences between positions of different landmarks
within the same skull or patient.
3. Side (S) - differences in landmark position between the left and right
sides of the skull or patient.
4. Case (C) - differences between successive digitizations of the same
radiograph.
The reliability of the method was calculated using generalizability theory
which uses an analysis of variance to separate the total variance into its
component parts. The total variance is made up of the variation due to each
factor plus the variation due to all combinations of factors. Since reliability
is a measure of how reproducible the method is in repeated trials, any
variance between successive digitizations is considered undesirable. To
calculate the general reliability of the method, variance due to case and any
other variance in combination with case were subtracted from the total
variance, then this value was divided by the total variance.
where: R = reliability; VT = total variance; Vc = variance due to case; VcRP
= variance due to case in combination with radiograph position.
Because the sample was accepted on the criterion of good facial symmetry,
the relative contribution of side as a variable was not considered in the
estimation of reliability. The very high level of reliability [Rx(skull) = .9995,
Ry(skull) = .9992, Rx(patient) = .9910, Ry(patient) = .9985] indicates that
the relative contribution of multiple digitizations to the total variance is very
low.
B. Method error

The magnitude of error associated with the equipment (SDx = .13 mm, SDy
= .10 mm) was very close to the ± .1 mm accuracy of the digitizer claimed
by the equipment manufacturer.
C. Intraexaminer landmark error
The error associated with the identification of each landmark was calculated
for both the skull and patient samples (Tables 1 and 2). There was a wide
variation in the amount of identification error between landmarks, as well as
between the vertical and horizontal error for each particular landmark.
Visual inspection of the results indicates that the identification errors for the
skull and patient radiographs were similar, with the values generally larger
for the patient radiographs where soft tissue became a factor. Landmark
identification error for the skull sample and patient sample were compared
using a Student Newman Keuls comparison of means (P<.05). Horizontal
identification error was significantly greater in the patient sample for
Landmark Mandible/Occiput (MB0). Vertical identification error was
significantly greater in the patient sample for Landmark Maxillary Cuspid
(MX3) and Crista Galli (CG). Vertical identification error was significantly
greater in the skull sample for Landmark Zygomatic Frontal (ZF) and Nasal
Septum (NSM).
D. Interexaminer landmark error
The landmark identification errors for a single examiner and four examiners
were determined for a selected sample of 20 skull and patient radiographs
(Tables 3 to 6). The results indicate that landmark identification error was
generally larger when four examiners were used, with the error for the
patient sample larger than the skull sample.
A Student-Newman-Keuls comparison of means was used to compare the
identification errors of each sample.

The results listed in Tables 3 to 6 show the comparison between groups.
Horizontal interexaminer landmark identification error was significantly
larger than the intraexaminer error for four landmarks in the skull sample,
and 10 landmarks in the patient sample. Vertical interexaminer landmark
identification error was significantly larger than the intraexaminer error for
eight landmarks in the skull sample and 17 landmarks in the patient sample.
Horizontal interexaminer landmark identification error was larger in the
patient sample compared with the skull sample for landmarks Lateral Orbit
(LO), Foramen Rotundum (FR) and Malar (M). Vertical interexaminer
landmark identification error was larger in the patient sample compared to
the skull sample for Landmarks Orbital (O), Condyle Superior (CS),
Condyle Center (CC), Zygomatic Frontal (ZF), Foramen Rotundum (FR),
Maxillary Cuspid (MX3), Crista Galli (CG) and Genial Tubercles (GT).
Discussion
There was a great deal of variability in the magnitude of horizontal and
vertical landmark identification errors. This variability existed both within
each landmark and between different landmarks. This is in agreement with
the findings of other studies into landmark identification errors.8,11,12,23–
25 The range of values (in millimeters) for intraexaminer errors (0.28–2.23)
was of similar magnitude as that reported by Vincent and West11 (0.31–
2.09) who also used five digitizations. The El Mangoury et al.12 study into
Posterior Anterior Cephalometric landmark identification error reported a
range of error of 0.42 to 1.74. Her study used patient radiographs and when
the same landmarks were examined in this study, the range of error was of
similar magnitude (0.37–1.10).
The interexaminer identification errors showed a wide variation in
magnitude in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The range of values

(0.31–4.79) was larger than in the intraexaminer portion of the study. This
difference can be attributed to interpretive differences between operators.
The study by El Mangoury et al.12 used only one operator and did not report
interexaminer error. The Baumrind and Frantz8 study on lateral
cephalograms used multiple operators and the range of error reported in their
study was 0.34 to 3.71, which is similar to the range found in this study.
The choice of landmarks used in any analysis will depend on the objective
of the analysis. Knowledge of the landmark identification error in both the
horizontal and vertical directions is essential in establishing a valid analysis.
Landmarks with a large horizontal identification error should be avoided in
transverse measurements. Similarly, landmarks with large vertical
identification error should be avoided in measuring vertical structural
relationships. Some landmarks will be useful for measurements in one
dimension but not in the other. For example, landmark Nasal Septum (NSM)
has a relatively small horizontal error (.49 in the skull sample) and large
vertical error (2.82 in the skull sample). Caution must be exercised when
comparing data taken from skull samples to patient samples. Most
landmarks had similar identification errors but there were exceptions.
Some landmarks may be quite useful in research trials where one examiner
takes repeated measurements, but less useful for clinical diagnosis where
differences in interpretation may be large. For example, landmark
Zygomatic (Z) had a relatively small intraexaminer error in both the
horizontal (0.29) and vertical (0.51) dimensions, but large interexaminer
errors in both the horizontal (2.42) and vertical (3.49) dimensions. This
particular landmark may be very useful in research but would have limited
value as part of a clinical diagnostic analysis.

The clinical significance of the magnitude of landmark identification error
will depend on the level of accuracy required. The landmark identification
errors reported in this study represent the standard deviation of error.
Landmarks with identification errors greater than 1.5 mm should probably
be avoided and landmarks with identification error greater than 2.5 mm are
inappropriate.
The reliability of landmarks for dried skulls was compared to live patients.
In general landmarks are less reliable on patient radiographs where soft
tissue reduces hard tissue image sharpness. These differences should be kept
in mind when applying data from dry skull studies to clinical settings.
The basis of cephalometrics in orthodontic diagnosis includes the use of
standardized and reproducible head position in relation to the x-ray source
and film. The cephalostat earrods minimize rotation about the vertical and
transverse axis. A third reference may be positioned against the nose to
prevent rotation about the anterior posterior axis.1 Rotations of the head can
potentially occur through soft tissue distortion or improper patient
positioning. This study did not investigate the effect of head rotation on
landmark identification.
Conclusion
The intraexaminer and interexaminer landmark identification errors
associated with 52 posterior anterior cephalometric landmarks were
presented. The magnitude of landmark identification error had a wide range
with the horizontal error often being different from the vertical error. Some
landmarks showed significantly different errors when taken from skull
radiographs versus patient radiographs. Interexaminer landmark
identification errors were generally larger and, in many cases, significantly
larger, than intraexaminer errors. Many of the proposed posterior anterior

cephalometric analyses use landmarks which have an unacceptable
magnitude of landmark identification error.
Orthodontist, Inc.), 1987 No. 2, 168 - 175: Cephalometric Reliability A Full
ANOVA Model for the Estimation of True and Error Variance Peter H.
Buschang, Richar...
---------------------or variance has been method error.
Depending on the design of the analysis, method error alone could produce
inaccurate results ( BUSCHANG ET AL. 19844). Moreover, comparisons of
error variance are difficult to interpret due to the lack of standardization. In
contrast, the coefficient of reliability that is presented
Taken from the AJO-DO on CD-ROM (Copyright © 1997 AJO-DO),
Volume 1958 Dec (901 - 905): Résumé of the workshop and limitations of
the technique - Salzmann
--------------------------------
Ever since God created man in His image, man has been trying to change
man into his image. Attempts to change facial appearance are recounted
throughout recorded history. The question of what is a normal face, as that
of what constitutes beauty, will probably never be answered in a free
society. Orthodontists, in their attempts to change facio-oro-dental
deviations from accepted norms, have adopted cephalometric measurement,
a method long employed in physical anthropology. With the introduction of

roentgenography, it was inevitable that this procedure should be employed
as a medium for the purpose of roentgenographic cephalometrics.
Taken from the AJO-DO on CD-ROM (Copyright © 1997 AJO-DO),
Volume 1987 May (414 - 426): Normal radiographic anatomy and common
anomalies in cephalometrics - Kantor and Norton
--------------------------------
Normal radiographic anatomy and common anomalies seen in cephalometric
films
Mel L. Kantor, D.D.S., and Louis A. Norton, D.M.D.
Chapel Hill, N.C., and Farmington, Conn.
Lateral and posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs are used routinely in
the diagnosis and quantification of dentofacial anomalies that require
orthodontic treatment. The anatomic information that these films contain is
occasionally overlooked as the clinician prepares tracings and makes
measurements. With the increase of the average age of the orthodontic
patient population, there is greater likelihood of the presence of disease. This
article describes some important features of normal radiologic anatomy of
the head and neck so that a clinician can better recognize pathologic
changes. Common pathologic findings and anatomic anomalies are also
illustrated. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1987;91:414-26.)
During the course of evaluation and treatment, the orthodontist often takes
cephalometric radiographs of the patient's skull. A mathematic analysis is
usually done to help diagnose and quantify skeletal and dental
malocclusions, make growth predictions, or monitor the patient's treatment
progress. However, fortuitous findings must not be overlooked or ignored.
The clinician should evaluate the skull radiographs for any abnormalities

that might be present. To assist the orthodontist with this responsibility, we
will review normal radiographic anatomy of the human skull emphasizing a
systematic approach to interpretation. Examples illustrating variations of
normal anatomy that may be mistaken for pathosis are provided as well as
examples of pathologic changes that are often overlooked. No attempt will
be made to illustrate the full range and distribution of normal anatomy in
this limited review. References dealing with this subject are cited.
FILM INTERPRETATION
The information content of a radiograph is a complex function of film/screen
selection, technique factors, processing, and patient anatomy. The first three
of these parameters can be controlled and should be optimized to ensure the
best radiographic image with the least patient exposure. However, once a
radiograph is processed the amount of information recorded in the image
does not change, but the amount of information that can be retrieved from
each image is greatly affected by the circumstances under which the film is
viewed.1,2 Reduced ambient lighting, quiet surroundings, and the
elimination of peripheral light improve visual acuity.3,4
Kundel and Nodine5 have described two modes of visual perception of
radiographs. First is "global perception" resulting from rapid parallel
processing of the entire retinal image by means of pattern recognition and
rapid association with previously acquired visual concepts. The second is
"analytic perception,'' which is based on the extraction of features from the
incoming visual data and the use of logical rules to combine them in a
meaningful way. This technique results in a gradual buildup of the
perception. They suggest that experienced radiologists perceive
abnormalities in a global manner and that specific features are perceived
secondarily. The experienced orthodontist can often rapidly scan a

cephalometric film and tell whether a patient has a dental or skeletal
problem or a combination of the two and what part of the anatomy is
contributing the most to the problem. The cephalometric analysis usually
corroborates this global impression and quantitates a qualitative judgment.
Christensen and associates6 evaluated the effect of search time on
perception and found that obvious abnormalities are detected almost
instantaneously but that the overall number of abnormalities identified
increased as the viewing time increased. The number of visual images that
are immediately recognizable is a function of experience and the analytic
approach is necessary to evaluate those images that represent uncommon
findings. Even the experienced radiologist can be seriously misled and draw
the wrong conclusion if pattern recognition is the primary mode of
radiographic interpretation.7
Bisk and Lee8 reviewed 513 lateral cephalometric head films, which
represented the total population of the orthodontic practice of the senior
author. Eighteen films (3.5%) were classified as having abnormalities or
pathosis present as follows: enlarged adenoids— 5, failure of segmentation
C4-CS— 1, impacted canine— 1, interstitial emphysema— 1, osteoma— 1,
sinus polyp— 1, and sinusitis— 8. Because abnormalities occur
infrequently, the orthodontist should carefully search the cephalometric
films for features that would suggest disease and warrent further
investigation. Nanda, Merow, and Martin9 reported four cases of significant
abnormalities that were incidental findings: (1) a foreign object in the right
nostril, (2) bilateral retention cyst in the maxillary sinuses, (3) unusual
intrasellar cyst with a tooth or dermoid and, (4) multiple cysts of the jaws as
part of the basal cell nervous syndrome. Although the first two observations
had little impact on the patients' health, the latter two findings could have

had a serious negative effect on the patients' well-being if they had been
overlooked.
CRANIUM
In evaluating the cranium, the method suggested by Meschan10 is
recommended.
1. Calvarium and base. Initially, the size and shape of the calvarium and
base should be evaluated. Gooding11 reviews some of the common
morphometric indices available and concludes that they are most valuable
for following changes once an abnormality has been identified and that
"with experience normal craniofacial proportions at different age levels are
appreciated, and deviation is recognized as an indication of intra-cranial
abnormality.''
The calvarium is divided into three layers; the inner and outer tables are
compact bone and the middle table is cancellous. Thickness varies widely in
individuals and this will be demonstrated as varying radiodensities on the
radiograph. The thickest part of normal vault should not exceed 1 cm, after
which some degree of cerebral underdevelopment or systemic disease should
be suspected.12
2. Lines, impressions, channels, and sutures. Examination of the inner
surface of the calvarium will show numerous lines, impressions, and
channels that reflect the structure of the brain and its meningeal covering
(Fig. 1, A).
a. Meningeal vessel grooves. The arteries and veins of the meninges are
closely adapted to the inner able of the calvarium resulting in lines readily
identifiable by their well-defined borders, smooth undulating course, and
characteristic location. The middle meningeal vessels are usually the most

prominent; they begin at foramen spinosum and branch out, tapering along
the way.
b. Diploic vein channels. The diploic veins are contained in channels within
the cancellous bone of the middle table or diplöe. They will appear as
radiolucent channels 2 to 3 mm wide, coursing in an irregular pattern over
the calvarium; they do not appear to taper as the meningeal vessels do.
When two or more of these veins anastomose, a diploic lake may be present.
The diploic venous lakes are irregular, usually less than 2 cm in size, and
have multiple diploic veins running into them. Awareness of the existence of
diploic venous lakes and the observation of diploic channels associated with
them will usually allow the clinician to recognize these for what they are and
not mistake them for osteolytic lesions, such as bone metastasis,
meningoceles, fibrous dysplasia or histiocytosis X.13
c. Sutures. The sutures form the articulation of the cranial bones. Many of
the sutures are closed by the second year of life. The spheno-occipital
synchondrosis begins to ossify at puberty; the coronal, lambdoidal, and
sagittal sutures persist through early adulthood.10,14 Premature closure of
the sutures may be a primary defect, a component of other known head and
neck syndromes, or associated with metabolic, osseous, or hematologic
disorders.15 Sutural widening is usually a result of increased intracranial
pressure or destruction of bone at the suture margins. Observation of any of
these findings warrants further studies and consultation with the patient's
physician is recommended. The coronal, lambdoidal, and squamosal sutures
can be seen on the lateral cephalograph; the sagittal and lambdoidal sutures
and their junction, lambda, are seen on the posteroanterior (PA)
cephalogram. The sutures appear as radiolucent serpentine lines in their
anatomically expected location. Occasionally, there are small independent

bones that persist within a suture; these are called wormian bones and the
lambda region is a common location for them (Fig. 1, B). Multiple wormian
bones may be associated with cleidocranial dysplasia, cretinism, or
osteogenesis imperfecta.13
It is important to recognize the radiolucent lines that represent
the meningeal vessel grooves, the diploic vein channels, and the sutures, and
to be able to distinguish them from fractures of the calvarium, especially
given a history of recent trauma.
d. Arachnoid (pacchionian) granulation impressions. The arachnoid
granulations are an out-pocketing of the arachnoid membrane and sub-
arachnoid space that may extend into the dural sinuses or the adjacent lacuna
laterales. When found in the latter region, they may present as irregularly
rounded, sharply radiolucent depressions of the inner table of the skull. They
are most commonly found just lateral to the superior sagittal sinus, although
they can be located in proximity to any of the dural sinuses.16 They may
also calcify and this presentation will be described in a later section.
e. Dural sinuses. The sinuses of the dura mater are the channels by which the
blood from the cerebral veins, and some of the meningeal and diploic veins
drain into the internal jugular veins. The superior sagittal, sphenoparietal,
transverse, and sigmoid sinuses groove the inner table of the calvarium
producing broad radiolucent channels.
f. Convolutional markings. Also called digital markings or brain markings,
the convolutional markings are impressions or thinning of the inner table of
the calvarium caused by pressure from the convolutions or gyri of the
growing brain. They are most prominent in the 3- to 12-year age group and
tend to regress with age.17,18 Absence of these markings in the young or
persistence into adulthood, especially when accompanied by neurologic

signs and symptoms or other cranial morphologic abnormalities, is a
significant pathologic finding.19,20
g. Artifacts. If the patient's hair is particularly thick, wet, or pulled taut, it
may cause linear streaks to appear over the calvarium (Fig. 1, C).
3. Calcification within the calvarium. There are a number of intracranial
structures that may calcify in the absence of any disease. Reiskin7 has
stressed the importance of multiple right-angle views for the localization and
evaluation of these structures as a necessary component to distinguish
between those structures that are normal or physiologic and those that are
pathologic. Meschan20 has described the normal structures within the
calvarium that may calcify. They can be summarized as follows:
a. Pineal gland. The incidence of pineal calcification varies from 33% to
76% in the North American white population; there is a considerably lower
incidence in Japanese (10%), Indians (8%), and Nigerians (5%). The size of
the calcification averages 5 mm in length and 3 mm in height and width.
When seen in the frontal projection, the pineal gland is a midline structure
and a shift of 3 mm or more from midline is considered significant (Fig. 2,
A). Numerous methods have been described to localize the pineal gland in
the lateral radiograph; in general, it will be found above and slightly behind
the petrous portion of the temporal bone (Fig. 2, B). Calcification of the
pineal in children is not as common as in adults, but it is not a rare
phenomenon. It may be observed in approximately 5% of white children
under 10 years of age.
b. The habenular commissure may calcify and it will appear as a C-shaped
radiodensity located a few millimeters anterior to the pineal gland in about
30% of the adult population (Fig. 2, C).

c. Meningeal calcifications. The falx cerebri is calcified in approximately
7% of adults and is usually shown to best advantage in the frontal projection
where it appears as a linear midline radiopacity (Fig. 2, D). Calcification of
the arachnoid granulation appears as uniform radiopacities near the
corresponding granulation impression in the calvarium.
d. Petroclinoid ligament and diaphragma sellae. Calcification of the
petroclinoid ligament occurs in approximately 12% of adults and appears as
a radiopaque line extending from the posterior clinoid process to the petrous
ridge. Calcification of the diaphragma sellae may give the appearance of a
separate enclosed pituitary fossa. However, it must be remembered that we
are only seeing a two-dimensional representation and, in fact, there is a
space between the interclinoid calcifications to accommodate the pituitary
stalk. Radiographically, this appearance is described as ''roofing" or
''bridging" of the sella (Fig. 2, E).
In the absence of any clinical neurologic signs or symptoms,
these calcifications may be considered normal; however, it is important to
remember that many pathologic processes can be associated with these
calcifications. A patient with a calcified pineal gland who is experiencing
headaches, nausea, and vomiting should not be ignored; appropriate referral
and follow-up are warranted.
Once again, the patient's hairstyle may create artifacts that
mimic real findings. For example, if the hair is gathered on the lateral
surface of the skull into pigtails, it may resemble intracranial calcification on
the lateral skull film (Fig. 2, F).
4. Size and shape of the sella turcica. The sella turcica is a saddle-shaped
formation of the sphenoid bone in the middle cranial fossa. When viewed in
the lateral radiograph, the anterior clinoid processes are usually

superimposed; the hypophyseal fossa appears as a single dense curved line
that merges posteriorly with the posterior clinoid processes of the dorsum
sellae. The clinoid process may range from short and rounded to long and
pointed. Normal variants include (1) a middle clinoid process, (2) extension
of the sphenoid sinus into the dorsum sellae, posterior clinoid process or
anterior process, and (3) bridging as previously described. Because the sella
turcica is a midline structure, the floor of the hypophyseal fossa usually
appears as a single line. A double-contoured appearance may represent a
variant of normal, an artifact of positioning, or a significant pathologic
change.21,22 When viewed in the sagittal plane, the normal range for the
greatest anteroposterior dimension is 5 to 16 mm (average 10.6 mm), and the
depth as measured from a line between the anterior and posterior clinoid
processes to the floor of the hypophyseal fossa ranges from 4 to 12 mm
(average 8.1 mm).23 Significant variation in the size, area, or volume of the
sella associated with a variation of two standard deviations in height and
weight as compared to age-matched cohorts suggests a pituitary abnormality
and the patient's physician should be alerted to this finding. Expansion or
erosion of the borders of the pituitary fossa, especially if accompanied by
neurologic findings such as headaches, blurred or double vision, or
dizziness, is a significant finding and the patient should be referred for a
thorough evaluation. The sella turcica is also seen in the PA view where it is
superimposed over the superior aspect of the nasal cavity. In this view the
floor of the sella is usually convex upward.
PARANASAL SINUSES
The paranasal sinuses develop as outpouchings of the mucous membrane of
the fetal nasal cavity that extend into the maxillary, sphenoid, frontal, and
ethmoid bones, and subsequently enlarge. In adulthood the sinuses

communicate with the nasal cavity through ostia, thus reflecting their
common embryologic origin. The maxillary, sphenoid, and ethmoid sinuses
begin to enlarge in utero and may occasionally be detected radiographically
at birth. The frontal sinuses do not begin to pneumatize until the second year
and are not usually visible on the radiograph until the sixth year.24 Hence,
all four sets of paranasal sinuses should be evident in the average
orthodontic patient. The variation in size of the normal sinus may be great.
1. Maxillary sinuses are seen in the PA, base, and lateral views. In the
standard PA view, the petrous portion of the temporal bone is superimposed
over the superior one third of the sinus. If disease is suspected, the best view
of the maxillary sinuses in the frontal plane is obtained with a Water's
projection. The lateral view will show the borders in the sagittal plane;
however, the right and left sinuses will be superimposed and often
indistinguishable. On films obtained in the erect position, soft-tissue
swelling can usually be differentiated from free fluid in the sinus by the
nature of the air-shadow interface. The air-fluid line will be straight and
paraliel to the floor (Fig. 3, A); a soft-tissue swelling will produce a shadow
that follows the bony contours or is convex (Fig. 3, B). Bone destruction is
an important radiographic sign that requires biopsy and/or culture.
2. Frontal sinuses are seen to best advantage in the PA and lateral views.
They vary greatly in size, are usually asymmetric, and may even be absent.
An osteoma of the frontal sinus is not a rare finding (Fig. 4); it may be an
isolated finding or part of a generalized process such as Gardner's
syndrome.25,26 If osteomas are identified in association with the sinuses or
anywhere else, inquiry into family history and examination of the skin for
sebaceous cysts are required. The patient's physician should be informed of
any positive findings.

3. Sphenoid sinuses appear as a single cavity in the sphenoid bone, inferior
to the sella turcica in the lateral film. Although identifiable in the frontal
projection, the superimposition of the nasal septum, lateral nasal wall, and
the medial wall of the orbits makes evaluation difficult. The lateral extension
of the sphenoid sinuses is easily seen on the base projection; it is known to
vary greatly and, in the absence of any other pathologic findings, should be
considered an insignificant incidental finding.27
4. The ethmoid sinuses, also known as the ethmoid air cells, form the medial
wall of the orbit and the lateral wall of the upper half of the nose. The
ethmoid sinuses are divided by numerous septa resulting in multiple
compartments. Of the radiographic projections typically obtained for
orthodontic treatment planning, the ethmoid sinuses are best seen on the
lateral and base views. In the frontal view, they are seen as a radiolucency
between the medial rim of the orbit and the nasal septum.
When evaluating the paranasal sinuses, the integrity of the bony borders and
adjacent structures and the degree of aeration must be established. In health,
the thin mucous membrane lining is not visible on the radiograph.
MASTOIDS
The mastoid air cells communicate indirectly with the nasal cavity via the
middle ear; however, embryologically they develop separately from the
paranasal sinuses. Nonetheless, the radiographic appearances of air-filled
cavities within the bone resemble the ethmoid air cells. The distribution and
pneumatization of the mastoid air cells are extremely variable; the cells are
located in the mastoid process and periauricular region and may extend as
far forward as the zygomatic process of the temporal bone.28
CERVICAL SPINE

The upper vertebrae are often visible on the lateral and PA cephalometric
radiographs. The atlas has no body or spinous process and has the form of a
ring. The axis has the fundamental structure of the cervical vertebra with the
addition of an upward projection called the dens or odontoid process. The
dens occupies the space where the body of the atlas would have developed;
it articulates with the posterior surface of the anterior arch of the atlas and
provides a pivot around which the atlas and skull rotate. The body of the
axis and the odontoid process have separate ossification centers23 and often
do not fuse until age 12.20 Therefore, a transverse radiolucency at the base
of the odontoid process in a young ambulatory patient with no history of
trauma should not be mistaken for a fracture.
The C-spine has a gentle curvature and is convex anteriorly when viewed
from the side. This normal lordotic curve is position-dependent and can be
altered as a result of failure to achieve natural head position when placing
the patient in the cephalometric head holder or as a result of muscle spasm
that causes the patient to posture the head in an effort to reduce pain and
discomfort.
Lines drawn along the anterior and posterior margins of the vertebral bodies
should be practically parallel. A straight line drawn along the front of the
odontoid process meets the anterior margin of the foramen magnum and lies
approximately 1 mm behind and away from the posterior border of the
anterior arch of the atlas. The normal dimension of the spinal canal ranges
from 18 to 27 mm at the first cervical vertebra to 15 to 20 mm at the seventh
cervical vertebra for children 15 years of age and less. For adults, the ranges
are 16 to 30 mm and 13 to 24 mm, respectively.20 In the PA view, the
lateral border of the vertebral body will be in alignment and the spinous

process will be visible. Frank displacement of a vertebra is a serious
abnormality that demands further investigation (Fig. 5).
The intervertebral disk is a fibrocartilaginous anulus with a gelatinous center
and is not visible on a conventional radiograph. However, we can make
inferential observations about the intervertebral disk by evaluating the
surrounding anatomy. The intervertebral disk space appears as a
radiolucency between the vertebral bodies defined by the relatively parallel
inferior and superior cortical margins. If the cortical margins appear
convergent or the disk space is narrowed, this may suggest a herniated disk.
UPPER AIRWAY AND NECK
The upper air passages— the nasal cavity, oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx
— appear radiolucent on the skull film. When sufficiently thick, the soft
tissues of the region will have an intermediate radiodensity between the
airway and skeleton.
The nasal air passages usually conform to the bony architecture as the
mucosal lining of the nasal cavity is usually less than 1 mm thick and does
not cast a radiographic shadow. Thickened membranes or linings can be
seen as an intermediate density between bone and air with proper exposure
factors. The cigar-shaped nasal conchae will be superimposed over the
airway; this will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.
The dimensions of the oral airway will vary depending on the position of the
tongue. If the tongue is elevated, it may contact the soft palate and their
radiographic shadows will merge. The palatine tonsils are situated between
the palatoglossal and palatopharyngeal folds in the lateral fauces. These can
sometimes be distinguished on the lateral film, especially if they are
inflamed and enlarged (Fig. 6).

On the superior aspect of the posterior wall of the nasopharynx, there is a
collection of lymphatic tissue (the nasopharyngeal tonsils or adenoids) that
may be quite large in children. This is usually easy to identify on the lateral
cephalometric film (Fig. 7). Changes in breathing patterns caused by
hypertrophied adenoids may affect facial growth patterns.29,30 The
lymphatic tissue tends to atrophy with age and will not be as prominent in
adult patients. The opening of the eustachian tubes on the lateral wall of the
nasopharynx just behind the inferior nasal conchae may be evident as a
round, relatively radiolucent area.20 These structures are difficult to see, but
may be discerned with certain anatomic and exposure factors. The soft
palate separates the nasopharynx from the oropharynx. At rest, it extends
from the posterior borders of the hard palate and arches inferiorly.
In the lateral projection, the hyoid bone is seen just below the angle of the
mandible. The thyroid, cricoid, and tracheal ring cartilage are usually not
visualized but may on occasion have areas of calcification that appear on the
radiographs. The epiglottis and the laryngeal folds are also seen.
The prevertebral soft tissue and muscles can be seen separating the airway
from the vertebral column. The retropharyngeal shadow at the line of C2
varies from 2 to 7 mm in children less than 15 years of age and from 1 to 7
mm in adults; the retrotracheal shadow at the level of the C6 varies from 5 to
14 and 9 to 22 mm, respectively.20 The soft-tissue shadow should have a
smooth anterior outline. In the PA view, the lateral wall of the
laryngopharynx and the larynx are seen; other parts of the airway are
obscured by superimposition of bony structures.
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL COMPLEX
Orthodontists are most familiar with the facial portion of the skull as this is
the region they routinely treat. For our purposes we will consider the

dentomaxillofacial complex to include the orbits, nose, zygomatic arches,
and jaws. The paranasal sinuses have been dealt with separately in a
previous section.
1. Orbits. In the PA view, the rim of the orbit is seen as a smooth round
radiopaque line. There are a number of structures that appear within the orbit
and these should all be evaluated. The lesser wing of the sphenoid
contributes to the floor of the anterior cranial fossa and is seen as a
horizontal convex-down curvilinear radiodensity in the superior third of the
orbit. From the region where this line intersects the superolateral border of
the orbit, there is another linear radiopacity running downward and medially;
this is called the innominate line and represents a cuvature of the greater
wing of the sphenoid.
The optic foramen is a round radiolucency near the medial orbital wall. The
superior and inferior orbital fissures can be seen extending from this region
in lateral-upward and lateral-downward directions, respectively.
Occasionally, one can follow the path of the inferior orbital fissure as it
becomes the inferior orbital canal and emerges on the front of the face as the
infraorbital foramen. Just medial and slightly below the infraorbital foramen
is a somewhat larger well-defined circular radiolucency; this is foramen
rotundum through which the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve
passes as it leaves the skull base. This may be a region deserving careful
scrutiny if the patient complains of pain over the area that this division
innervates. The vertical position of the foramen will vary depending upon
the tilt of the patient's head relative to the central ray of the beam. At the
junction of the middle and medial thirds of the superior rim of the orbit, the
supraorbital foramen may be seen as a small, round radiolucency (Fig. 8). In
the lateral view, the superior and inferior walls of the orbit are seen.

Likewise, the posterior and anterolateral margins of the orbit are visualized;
however, the superimposition of structures makes it difficult to distinguish
left from right. The zygomaticofrontal and maxillofrontal sutures may be
seen at the rim of the orbit and should not be mistaken for fractures.
2. The nose. In the PA view, the nasal septum, lateral walls, and conchae are
easily defined. The nasal septum should be positioned at the midline;
displacement from the midline may represent a congenitally deviated
septum, prior trauma, or the presence of a pathologic process causing the
displacement (Fig. 9). Extending medially from the lateral walls are the
nasal conchae or turbinates. The inferior and middle conchae are usually
seen, but the superior conchae may not be visualized. In the lateral views,
the inferior conchae appear as a cigar-shaped radiopacity. Often the posterior
extent of the conchae extends beyond the posterior border of the maxillary
sinus, which makes it radiographically difficult to distinguish from an
isolated radiopacity in the nasal cavity. If there is a question as to what this
radiographic shadow represents, establishing continuity of the outer
boundary of the radiopacity with the adjacent turbinate bone should confirm
its identity. Should a question persist, the posterior nasopharynx can be
visualized by indirect laryngoscopy using an angled mirror and proper
lighting.
3. Zygomatic arches. The zygomatic process arises from the maxillary bone
at the region of the first molar. The radiodensity, size, and shape of this
structure are variable and the structure often takes on a different form,
depending upon the angle of the directed x-ray beam. The zygomatic process
may appear quite radiolucent if the maxillary antrum extends into it. The
greater the extension of the maxillary sinus into the zygomatic process, the
greater the contrast of the dark radiolucent air spaces and the sharply defined

cortical walls of the process. Seen in the lateral cephalogram, the corticated
walls of the zygomatic process appear as a U-shaped radiopaque line known
as a key ridge. The definition of the molar apices superimposed on the
zygoma will vary with the amount of pneumatization that has occurred. If
aeration is minimal, molar apical and maxillary sinus anomalies may be
masked or ill-defined.
4. The jaws. Details of the teeth and their surrounding structures are difficult
to see on skull films because of superimposition of anatomic structures and
the inherent resolution limitation of screen film. Evaluation of the teeth and
periodontium is best accomplished by a periapical film. Most orthodontists
use these intraoral films in their diagnostic evaluations and treatment plans.
Misinterpretations can present problems here also. For example,
occasionally a double image of the lamina dura is seen that reflects the
normal concavities and fluting of the roots or the superimposition of
different roots of a multirooted tooth such as the maxillary first molar.
Superimposition of the lingual root surface and periodontal ligament space
of the first premolar onto the distal surface of the canine in the periapical
film should not be mistaken for a vertical root fracture of the canine. Care
should be taken to examine carefully for supernumerary teeth and evidence
of small developing bud follicles. They can be of great consequence if the
clinician is trying to move teeth into the space they occupy. If initially
overlooked and subsequently noted on follow-up radiographs, they are a
source of embarrassment at least, and iatrogenesis at worst (Fig. 10).
The trabecular pattern of the anterior maxilla is fine, granular, and dense.
The posterior maxilla shows a slightly less dense pattern with larger marrow
spaces. The trabeculae of the anterior mandible are thicker than the maxilla,
presenting a course pattern with large marrow spaces. The posterior

mandibular periapical trabeculae and marrow spaces are usually the largest
in the jaws. These can be variable in size and mimic pathologic lesions.
Changes in the density and pattern of the cancellous bone may result from
inflammation, systemic disease, or tumors (Fig. 11).
The mandibular symphysis frequently has a radiolucent line at the midline
suture that disappears at about 1 year postpartum. If this radiolucency is
found in older children or adults, it may suggest a fracture or cleft. The
genial tubercles are the bony projections of attachment of the genioglossus
and geniohyoid muscles. They often have a small radiolucent area in the
center (the lingual foramen) that is the point of exit of mandibular nerve.
Depending upon its size, this may be mistaken for incipient pathosis. The
mental fossa is a depression found in the labial aspect of the mandible. The
thinness of the hard tissue in this area may be mistaken for periapical disease
of the incisors. similarly, the- mental foramen, located between the first and
second premolars, can mimic periapical pathosis in this area. The
mandibular canal forrns a dark linear radiographic shadow with thin superior
and inferior opaque borders cast by its lamella boundaries. The molar teeth
apices are frequently projected over this canal, giving the illusion of a
discontinuous lamina dura surrounding these teeth. This is due to the
localized overexposure caused by this radiolucent linear structure. Finally,
the submandibular fossa is a depression on the lingual side of the mandible
below the mylohyoid ridge that accommodates the submandibular gland. It
will appear as a local radiolucency with scant or absent trabeculation. The
anterior and posterior aspects of this radiolucency will blend into the
surrounding bony pattern.
SUMMARY

We have presented a review of certain aspects of normal radiographic
anatomy, discussed range and distribution, and identified some common
errors in diagnosis. Nonetheless, this review has covered only a small
amount of the information available. It is up to clinicians through careful
study of the films, by use of available reference material, and by
consultation with colleagues in medical and dental radiology to constantly
expand and improve their knowledge of normal radiographic anatomy.
All radiographs of the head taken for orthodontic purposes should be
considered skull films before they are thought of as cephalograms. By
adopting this attitude, the orthodontist will be inclined to carefully review
these films for significant deviations from normal and evidence of pathosis.
Only after this responsibility has been met should cephalometric tracings or
other morphometric analysis be done.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Allan B. Reiskin for reviewing the
manuscript, and providing helpful comments and suggestions. We also
appreciate the expert assistance provided by the UNC School of Dentistry
Learning Resources Center, especially Mr. Warren McCollum for the
production of the illustrations and photography.
Orthodontist, Inc.), 1997 No. 2, 83 - 85: Making sense of cephalometrics
Robert M. Rubin.
--------------------------------
EDITORIAL
Making sense of cephalometrics
Robert M. Rubin, DMD, MS
In the 60-year history since the development of cephalometric radiology,
literally undreds of methods of analysis have been proposed. Many of them

have contributed to a better understanding of the complexity of changes
associated with facial growth. Some analyses have been useful in identifying
how individual patients vary from norms that have been derived from large
numbers of cohorts. Some cephalometric analyses and methods of
superimposition are useful in monitoring the changes that are due to growth
or to a combination of growth and treatment.
Cephalometric measurements are also useful in descriptive communication.
Just as Angle’s classification describes a specific relationship between the
teeth in the maxilla and mandible, the Downs’ facial angle communicates a
picture of a relationship between the Frankfort horizontal and
nasion/menton.
Each method of analysis is based on certain assumptions, some expressed
and some implied. This essay examines several assumptions and evaluates
their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, there are two different uses for
assessment of the presenting patient. How does this patient vary from
recognized norms? This information allows the practitioner to focus on
where the patient’s anomalies exist, and allows him or her to plan for the
achievable ideal for the patient.
The second use of cephalometrics is to monitor changes due to growth or
treatment, or their combination. I propose that some measurements may be
well-suited for assessment but are poor choices for monitoring change.
Similarly, some measurements are poor choices for assessment but are
particularly well-suited for observing change. Failure to make this
distinction has led to confusion in treatment and absence of clarity in
communication in describing changes that occur with growth and/or
treatment.

Almost every article in the orthodontic literature begins with a section
describing the cephalometric system used for the evaluation that follows. It
would be more efficient if each writer did not have to define the method of
cephalometric assessment, as would be the case if there were agreement in
our profession on the measurements and their uses. Precedent for adopting
such agreements exists. In 1929, the world’s anthropologists met and agreed
on the definition of the Frankfort horizontal plane. Orthodontists were quick
to adopt that definition, and that agreement has contributed to better
communication in the anthropologic and orthodontic literature. Now, 60
years after its introduction, radiographic cephalometrics is overdue for an
agreement on how we assess craniofacial morphology and how we monitor
changes due to growth and/or treatment.
Consider the following analogy: The orthopedic surgeon, noting growth of
the femur, observes that the inferior epiphysial cartilage grows several
millimeters. The neurosurgeon may note oppositional growth between the
lumbar vertebrae. Neither of these physicians would suggest that the result
of these increments of growth would drive the feet into the ground. They are
in agreement that growth of the vertebrae or femur contributes to increased
height. This agreement may not seem remarkable because the obviousness
of it is so apparent. But, consider the possibilities if we lived in a weightless
environment. In that environment confusion about describing the results of
growth would be possible. Some would say that femoral growth carries the
ankle down; others would say it carries the pelvis up. Neurosurgeons might
describe vertebrae growth as moving the feet and head in opposite
directions. This is the sort of confusion we have in craniofacial growth.
The ease of identifying sella turcica led many cephalometric researchers to
choose the line from sella to nasion as a key line of registration. It turns out

to be a relatively poor choice because of the confusion it engenders. With
the head facing right, as is generally agreed in cephalo-metrics in this
hemisphere, we consider growth to move skeletal landmarks to the right and
down, away from sella. Confusion occurs when growth at the spheno-
occipital synchondrosis is considered. Its proliferation, which often
continues through puberty and can total more than 10 mm, carries the
glenoid fossa and the mandible to the left—the opposite direction that
condylar growth carries the mandible. This conflict is analogous to viewing
femur growth as carrying the feet into the ground. Agronin and Kokich
never mentioned the spheno-occipital synchondrosis in their report,
“Displacement of the glenoid fossa: a cephalometric evaluation of growth
during treatment.” (Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91:42-8.) They
stated that during craniofacial growth, articulare is displaced posteriorly and
inferiorly relative to the sphenoid bone. “The data support the premise that
changes in the spatial orientation of the glenoid fossa and temporal bone
may have an effect on mandibular position.” They were undermined by their
assumptions! A more accurate description is that growth of the spheno-
occipital synchondrosis carries the craniomaxillary complex superiorly and
to the right, making the case more Class II and increasing facial height.
There is a baseline available for viewing craniofacial growth that is
analogous to using the ground for a baseline for somatic growth. That
baseline is basion, the anterior edge of the foramen magnum. Using basion
as the base (aptly named), all craniofacial growth is seen as movement away
from the spinal cord, just as all skeletal growth is viewed as elevating the top
of the head.
A cephalometric analysis that uses this concept is the Coben basion
horizontal analysis, first presented in 1955. Orienting on basion and

maintaining the Frankfort plane parallel to the horizon, all growth of the
craniofacial skeletal is seen to carry structures to the right, away from the
vertebrae column.
Frankfort horizontal is a useful plane because it is believed to approximate
the optic axis, the plane that appears to be kept level throughout life. This is
important as it correlates the clinical appearance of the patient to his or her
cephalometric analysis. Analysis based on sella-nasion may not relate well
to the presenting patient if the anterior cranial base is steeply sloped. One
problem with the Frankfort plane is that it is not suitable for serial
evaluations. Coben handles this by using a constructed Frankfort on
subsequent tracings, drawn tangent to porion and at the same angle to sella-
nasion as the original tracing.
Some cephalometric measurements are excellent for assessment—that is, the
evaluation of the initial film to describe the problem. The same measurement
may, however, be a poor choice for monitoring change because an element
of it may be unstable. For example, upper incisor to occlusal plane is an
excellent assessment of the torque of the incisor. The norm is 65 degrees. It
is a poor choice to monitor torque achieved because its baseline, the occlusal
plane, can change during treatment. To monitor upper incisor change it
would be wiser to use upper incisor to sella-nasion. However, this is a poor
choice for assessment as it is remote from the occlusion and independently
related. A large upper incisor-sella-nasion angle can be due to a procumbent
incisor or a flat anterior cranial base.
It is not sufficient to rate a measurement as good or poor. It is important to
rate it as good or poor for assessment, and good or poor for monitoring
change. Table 1 shows some examples of commonly used cephalometric
measurements and an appraisal of their usefulness.

This essay proposes that superimposition on basion with the Frankfort plane
kept horizontal be adopted as the universal method of registration for
evaluating overall craniofacial changes due to growth and/or treatment. Area
superimpositions will, of course, still be necessary to determine the specific
sites of the changes. Such an agreement would eliminate the need to preface
every cephalometric study with an extensive section describing the method
of superimposition. The reduction in journal space and in reader’s time
would be an enormous savings for our specialty, and lead to a more efficient
comparison of studies. Frequently, it is impossible to compare similar
studies when different landmarks and methods of superimposition are used.
In addition, a glossary of measurements should be developed that not only
defines the measurement, but indicates if it is valid for assessment or for
documenting change. I believe these two measures would contribute to
increased clarity in our literature and enhanced coherence in the process of
planning treatment and evaluating progress and posttreatment records.
Orthodontics is marvelously complex. It is unnecessary to add to its
complexity by promulgating confusing and fuzzy assumptions that impair
accurate communication.

Cephalometrics history, evolution, and land marks/orthodontic courses by indian dental academy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Cephalometrics history, evolution, and land marks/orthodontic courses by indian dental academy

Similar to Cephalometrics history, evolution, and land marks/orthodontic courses by indian dental academy (20)

More from Indian dental academy

More from Indian dental academy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cephalometrics history, evolution, and land marks/orthodontic courses by indian dental academy