Advertisement

Comparative determination of skeletal maturity by hand–wrist radiograph, cephalometric radiograph and cone beam computed tomography

  • Alperen TekınEmail author
  • Kader Cesur Aydın
Original Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to assess the stages of skeletal maturity in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), hand–wrist radiography (HWR) and cephalometric radiography (CR) techniques of orthodontic patients, and associate skeletal maturity stages with chronological age, in a Turkish subpopulation.

Methods

Hand–wrist radiographs, cephalometric radiographs and CBCT of 105 patients were evaluated. For evaluation of HWR, the “Hand Bone Age A Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity” of Vicente Gilsanz and Osman Ratib (2005) was used. Skeletal maturation in the cephalometric radiographs and sagittal sections of cervical vertebrae obtained by CBCT were evaluated with Hassel and Farman’s method (1995). All results were re-evaluated 3 weeks later to assess intra-observer reliability.

Results

Intra-observer reliability coefficients of the skeletal maturity stages in HWR, CR, and CBCT were 0.912, 0.595, 0.756 respectively (p < 0.05). Spearman’s correlation coefficient value between skeletal developmental stages in in HWR, CR, and CBCT was found to be 0.785, 0.875, and 0.791, respectively (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Results of this study reveal that the determination of the skeletal development status with analysis of cervical vertebrae using cephalometric radiographs and CBCT is as reliable method as the evaluation of the hand–wrist radiographs and is compatible with chronological age in a subgroup of the Turkish population. When assessing the skeletal development stages of patients, both CBCT and CR can be used validly, so no extra hand–wrist radiography is required. This information is important for the prevention of increased radiation doses in patients.

Keywords

Cephalometric radiograph Chronological age Cone beam computed tomography Hand–wrist radiograph Skeletal age Skeletal maturation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fishman LS. Chronological versus skeletal age, an evaluation of craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod. 1979;49(3):181–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Green LJ. The interrelationship among height, weight and chronological, dental and skeletal ages. Angle Orthod. 1961;31:189–93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grave KC, Brown T. Skeletal ossification and the adolescent growth spurt. Am J Orthod. 1976;69(6):611–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simmons K, Greulich WW. Menarcheal age and the height, weight, and skeletal age of girls age 7 to 17 years. J Pediatr. 1943;22(5):518–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishman LS. Maturational patterns and prediction during adolescence. Angle Orthod. 1987;57(3):178–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hägg U, Taranger J. Maturation indicators and the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(4):299–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Björk A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal. Radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963;42:400–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caldas MDP, Ambrosano GMB, Haiter Neto F. New formula to objectively evaluate skeletal maturation using lateral cephalometric radiographs. Braz Oral Res. 2007;21(4):330–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Houston WJB. Relationships between skeletal maturity estimated from hand–wrist radiographs and the timing of the adolescent growth spurt. Eur J Orthod. 1980;2(2):81–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O'Reilly MT, Yanniello GJ. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae: a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 1988;58(2):179–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamparski DG. Skeletal age assessment utilizing cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod. 1975;67(4):458–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;107(1):58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(4):316–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semi Orthod. 2005;11(3):119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Todd TW, Pyle SI. A quantitative study of the vertebral column by direct and roentgenoscopic methods. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1928;12(2):321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bick EM, Copel JW. Longitudinal growth of the human vertebra. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1950;32(4):803–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hellsing E. Cervical vertebral dimensions in 8-, 11-, and 15-year-old children. Acta Odontol Scand. 1991;49(4):207–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118(3):335–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Small BW. Cone beam computed tomography. Gen Dent. 2007;55(3):179–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72(1):75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use practice. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28:245–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2003;6:31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shim JJ, Heo G, Lagravère MO. Assessment of skeletal maturation based on cervical vertebrae in CBCT. Int Orthod. 2012;10(4):351–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Byun BR, Kim YI, Yamaguchi T, Maki K, Ko CC, Hwang DS, Son WS. Quantitative skeletal maturation estimation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cervical vertebral images: a pilot study in 5-to 18-year-old Japanese children. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):2133–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joshi V, Yamaguchi T, Matsuda Y, Kaneko N, Maki K, Okano T. Skeletal maturity assessment with the use of cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;113(6):841–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilsanz V, Ratib O. Hand bone age: a digital atlas of skeletal maturity. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005. p. 2–17.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fishman LS. Radiographic evaluation of skeletal maturation: a clinically oriented method based on hand–wrist films. Angle Orthod. 1982;52(2):88–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hunter CJ. The correlation of facial growth with body height and skeletal maturation at adolescence. Angle Orthod. 1966;36(1):44–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simmons K, Greulich WW. Chronological versus skeletal age, an evaluation of craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod. 1979;49(3):181–9.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Am J Med Sci. 1959;238(3):393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Houston WJ, Miller JC, Tanner JM. Prediction of the timing of the adolescent growth spurt from ossification events in hand–wrist films. Br J Orthod. 1979;6(3):145–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tanner JM, Healy MRJ, Goldstein H, Cameron N. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3). 3rd edn. London: W.B Saunders; 2001. p. 243–54.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cameron CG, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment timing for rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2001;71(5):343–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kama JD, Gündüz AS, Darı O, Özer T. Erkek Bireylerde Servikal Vertebra Kemik Yaşının Kronolojik ve İskelet Yaş ile Karşılaştırılması. Dicle Tıp Dergisi. 2006;33(1):36–41.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Flores-Mir C, Burgess CA, Champney M, Jensen RJ, Pitcher MR, Major PW. Correlation of skeletal maturation stages determined by cervical vertebrae and hand–wrist evaluations. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(1):1–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Basciftci FA, Sari Z. Chronologic age and skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae and hand–wrist: is there a relationship? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;130(5):622–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lai EHH, Liu JP, Chang JZC, Tsai SJ, Yao CCJ, Chen MH, Lin CP. Radiographic assessment of skeletal maturation stages for orthodontic patients: hand–wrist bones or cervical vertebrae? J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107(4):316–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaplowitz P, Srinivasan S, He J, McCarter R, Hayeri MR, Sze R. Comparison of bone age readings by pediatric endocrinologists and pediatric radiologists using two bone age atlases. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(6):690–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lin FQ, Zhang J, Zhu Z, Wu YM. Comparative study of Gilsanz-Ratib digital atlas and Greulich-Pyle atlas for bone age estimation in a Chinese sample. Ann Hum Biol. 2015;42(6):523–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    San Román P, Palma JC, Oteo MD, Nevado E. Skeletal maturation determined by cervical vertebrae development. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(3):303–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryIstanbul Medipol University School of DentistryIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryTurkey Beykent UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations