Accuracy of a real-time registration system based on orthodontic landmarks

doi:10.12307/2026.624

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The superimposition of consecutive cephalometric lateral radiographs is commonly used in orthodontics to assess the outcomes of orthodontic/orthopedic treatments and changes in growth and development. The key factors affecting the accuracy of cephalometric superimposition are landmark localization errors and registration methods. Currently, there is no highly accurate registration system.
OBJECTIVE: To study a real-time registration system that guides the adjustment of landmark localization on cephalometric lateral radiographs to assist in improving registration accuracy and evaluate the precision of this registration method.
METHODS: Pre- and post-treatment cephalometric lateral radiographs of 40 adult patients were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Landmark localization on the pre- and post-treatment radiographs was performed using Labelme software. Real-time visualized registration software was developed using Python, Opencv, and PyQT. Registration was performed using the SellaNasion (SN) superimposition method, the Least Squared Averaged 5 Landmarks (LS-5) method, and the Real-time Least Squared Averaged 5 Landmarks (LS-5R) method. The distance errors and the success detection rate of landmarks anterior nasal spine (ANS), posterior nasal spine (PNS), upper alveolar seat point (A), lower alveolar seat point (B), point of anterior chin (Pog) were measured and compared to evaluate the registration accuracy.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The LS-5R method exhibited the smallest landmark distance errors. Compared with the SN method, all landmark distance errors showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The distance errors of PNS, A, B, and Pog landmarks with the LS-5R method were statistically different from those with the LS-5 method (P < 0.05), and the differences increased in sequence. The success detection rate of automatic landmark detection within 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm accuracy ranges was higher for the LS-5R method than for the SN superimposition method. The LS-5R method has smaller superimposition errors compared with the traditional SN method, making it a potentially more reliable method for superimposing consecutive cephalometric lateral radiographs in clinical practice.

Key words: lateral cephalogram, superimposition, multi-point registration, real-time registration, accuracy

CLC Number:

Huang Juneng, Zeng Jingjie, Peng Ying, Lu Wenrong, Tang Min, Zhang Xuejun. Accuracy of a real-time registration system based on orthodontic landmarks[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2026, 30(10): 2459-2465.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1] 赵志河. 口腔正畸学[M]. 7版.北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020.
[2] LENZA MA, CARVALHO AAD, LENZA EB, et al. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(3):29-36.
[3] MOON J, HWANG H, LEE S. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(3):390-396.
[4] GLIDDON MJ, XIA JJ, GATENO J, et al. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(2):194-202.
[5] YOU QL, HÄGG U. A comparison of three superimposition methods. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(6):717-725.
[6] HOUSTON W, LEE RT. Accuracy of different methods of radiographic superimposition on cranial base structures. Eur J Orthod. 1985;7(2):127-135.
[7] GOEL S, BANSAL M, KALRA A. A preliminary assessment of cephalometric orthodontic superimposition. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(2):217-222.
[8] BJÖRK A, SKIELLER V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983;5(1):1-46.
[9] GRAF CC, DRITSAS K, GHAMRI M, et al. Reliability of cephalometric superimposition for the assessment of craniofacial changes: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2022;44(5):477-490.
[10] AFRAND M, LING CP, KHOSROTEHRANI S, et al. Anterior cranial-base time-related changes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(1):21-32.
[11] MELSEN B, MELSEN F. The postnatal development of the palatomaxillary region studied on human autopsy material. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(4):329-342.
[12] GHAFARI J, ENGEL FE, LASTER LL. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91(5):403-413.
[13] DANZ JC, STÖCKLI S, RANK CP. Precision and accuracy of craniofacial growth and orthodontic treatment evaluation by digital image correlation: a prospective cohort study. Front Oral Health. 2024;5:1419481.
[14] SUH H, LEE H, LEE Y, et al. Predicting soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery: the sparse partial least squares method. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):910-916.
[15] KANG T, EO S, CHO H, et al. A sparse principal component analysis of Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(5):768-774.
[16] PANCHERZ H, HANSEN K. The nasion-sella reference line in cephalometry: a methodologic study. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(5):427-434.
[17] YOU QL, HÄGG U. A comparison of three superimposition methods. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(6):717-725.
[18] KIM M, MOON J, HWANG H, et al. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients. Angle Orthod. 2022; 92(2):226-232.
[19] BAUMRIND S, FRANTZ RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(2):111-127.
[20] BAUMRIND S, FRANTZ RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(5):505-517.
[21] TRPKOVA B, MAJOR P, PRASAD N, et al. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112(2):165-170.
[22] CHEN Y, CHEN S, CHUNG-CHEN YAO J, et al. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):155-161.
[23] DE QUEIROZ TAVARES BORGES MESQUITA G, VIEIRA WA, VIDIGAL MTC, et al. Artificial intelligence for detecting cephalometric landmarks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Digit Imaging. 2023;36(3):1158-1179.
[24] KIEŁCZYKOWSKI M, KAMIŃSKI K, PERKOWSKI K, et al. Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a cephalometric analysis: a narrative review. Diagnostics. 2023;13(16):2640.
[25] AL-TAAI N, PERSSON M, RANSJÖ M, et al. Craniofacial changes from 13 to 62 years of age. Eur J Orthod. 2022;44(5):556-565.
[26] BROADBENT BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2):45-66.
[27] RICKETTS RM. A four-step metod to distinguish orthodontic changesfrom natural growth. J Clin Orthod. 1975;9:208-228.
[28] ONGKOSUWITO EM, KATSAROS C, VAN’T HOF MA, et al. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(6):655-665.
[29] BAUMRIND S, MILLER D, MOLTHEN R. The reliability of head film measurements: 3. Tracing superimposition. Am J Orthod. 1976;70(6):617-644.
[30] HUJA SS, GRUBAUGH EL, RUMMEL AM, et al. Comparison of hand-traced and computer- based cephalometric superimpositions. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):428-435.
[31] RODEN-JOHNSON D, ENGLISH J, GALLERANO R. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):556-564.
[32] COOK PA, GRAVELY JF. Tracing error with Björk’s mandibular superimposition. Angle Orthod. 1988;58(2):169-178.
[33] OVARD S, LEROUX B, GREENLEE G, et al. Bias in the superimposition of lateral cephalograms in adult patients with anterior open bite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023;163(2):222-232.
[34] 李东, 宋卫华. 双颌前突青少年患者拔牙矫治前后下颌骨位置分析[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志,2003,21(5):410-411.
[35] HOSSEINZADEH-NIK T, EFTEKHARI A, SHAHROUDI AS, et al. Changes of the Mandible after Orthodontic Treatment with and without Extraction of Four Premolars. J Dent (Tehran). 2016;13(3):199.
[36] AL NAJJAR A, COLOSI D, DAUER LT, et al. Comparison of adult and child radiation equivalent doses from 2 dental cone-beam computed tomography units. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(6):784-792.
[37] COLCERIU-ŞIMON IM, BĂCIUŢ M, ŞTIUFIUC RI, et al. Clinical indications and radiation doses of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Med Pharm Rep. 2019;92(4):346.
[38] SIGNORELLI L, PATCAS R, PELTOMÄKI T, et al. Radiation dose of cone-beam computed tomography compared to conventional radiographs in orthodontics Strahlenbelastung beim digitalen Volumentomogramm im Vergleich zu konventionellen kieferorthopädischen radiologischen Unterlagen. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77:9-15.
[39] SANDHAM A. Repeatability of head posture recordings from lateral cephalometric radiographs. Br J Orthod. 1988;15(3):157-162.
[40] YOON Y, KIM D, YU P, et al. Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(1):36-42.
[41] COHEN AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod. 1984;11(1):44-48.
[42] HOUSTON W, MAHER RE, MCELROY D, et al. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8(3):149-151.
[43] LO GIUDICE A, RONSIVALLE V, ZAPPALÀ G, et al. The evolution of the cephalometric superimposition techniques from the beginning to the digital era: a brief descriptive review. Int J Dent. 2021;2021(1):6677133.
[44] SHEERAN S, HARTSFIELD JR J, OMAMI G, et al. Comparison of two 3-dimensional user-friendly voxel-based maxillary and 2-dimensional superimposition methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023;163(1):117-125.