Download PDF
Skull Base 2001; 11(1): 005-012
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-12781
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Comparison of Scientific Calipers and Computer-Enabled CT Review for the Measurement of Skull Base and Craniomaxillofacial Dimensions

Martin J. Citardi1 , Brian Herrmann2 , Chris S. Hollenbeak5 , Brendan C. Stack5 , Margaret Cooper3 , Richard D. Bucholz4
  • 1Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
  • 2Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • 3Department of Anatomy, Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • 4Department of Neurosurgery, Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • 5Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Pennsylvania State University, School of Medicine, Hersey, PA
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Traditionally, cadaveric studies and plain-film cephalometrics provided information about craniomaxillofacial proportions and measurements; however, advances in computer technology now permit software-based review of computed tomography (CT)-based models. Distances between standardized anatomic points were measured on five dried human skulls with standard scientific calipers (Geneva Gauge, Albany, NY) and through computer workstation (StealthStation 2.6.4, Medtronic Surgical Navigation Technology, Louisville, CO) review of corresponding CT scans. Differences in measurements between the caliper and CT model were not statistically significant for each parameter. Measurements obtained by computer workstation CT review of the cranial skull base are an accurate representation of actual bony anatomy. Such information has important implications for surgical planning and clinical research.

KEYWORD

Computer-aided surgery - 3D CT model - cephalometrics

REFERENCES

  • 1 Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy J G. Cephalometric analysis. Part I.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1981;  68 816-823
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy J G. Cephalometric analysis for upper and lower midface surgery. Part II.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1981;  68 961-968
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy J G. Cephalometric analysis for mandibular surgery. Part III.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1982;  69 155-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kragskov J, Sindet-Pdersen S, Gyldensted C, Jensen K L. A comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography scans and stereolithographic models for evaluation of craniofacial anomalies.  J Oral Maxillofac Surg . 1996;  54 402-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sejrsen B, Jakobsen J, Skovgaard L T, Kjaer I. Growth in the external cranial base evaluated on human dry skulls, using nerve canal openings as reference.  Acta Odontol Scand . 1997;  55 356-364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fialkov J A, Phillips J H, Gruss J S. A stereotactic system for guiding complex craniofacial reconstruction.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1992;  89 340-345
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Demianczuk A NA, Antonyshyun O M. Application of a three-dimensional intraoperative navigation system to craniofacial surgery.  J Craniofac Surg . 1997;  8 290-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Marmulla R, Niederellmann. Computer-assisted bone segment navigation.  J Craniomaxillofac Surg . 1998;  26 347-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cutting C, Grayson B, McCarthy J G. A virtual reality system for bone fragment positioning in craniofacial surgical procedures.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1998;  102 2436-2443
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes and lines used in cephalometric analysis.  Am J Orthodont . 1966;  52 637-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baumrind S, Frantz R C. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification.  Am J Orthodont . 1971;  60 111-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baumrind S, Frantz R C. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measurements.  Am J Orthodont . 1971;  60 505-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thurow R C. Cephalometric methods in research and private practice.  Angle Orthodont . 1951;  21 104-116
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hall D L, Bollen A-M. A comparison of sonically derived and traditional cephalometric values.  Angle Orthodont . 1996;  67 365-372
    PubMedGoogle Scholar