Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of skullbaseInstructions for AuthorsSubscribe to Skull BaseAbout Skull BaseEditorial BoardThieme Medical PublishingSkull Base An Interdisciplinary Approach ...
Skull Base. 2001; 11(1): 5–11.
PMCID: PMC1656841

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


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.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.2M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Images in this article

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy JG. Cephalometric analysis: part I. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Nov;68(5):816–823. [PubMed]
  • Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy JG. Cephalometric analysis for upper and lower midface surgery: Part II. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Dec;68(6):961–968. [PubMed]
  • Kragskov J, Sindet-Pedersen S, Gyldensted C, Jensen KL. A comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography scans and stereolithographic models for evaluation of craniofacial anomalies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Apr;54(4):402–412. [PubMed]
  • Sejrsen B, Jakobsen J, Skovgaard LT, Kjaer I. Growth in the external cranial base evaluated on human dry skulls, using nerve canal openings as references. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997 Dec;55(6):356–364. [PubMed]
  • Fialkov JA, Phillips JH, Gruss JS, Kassel EE, Zuker RM. A stereotactic system for guiding complex craniofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992 Feb;89(2):340–348. [PubMed]
  • Demianczuk AN, Antonyshyn OM. Application of a three-dimensional intraoperative navigational system in craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 1997 Jul;8(4):290–297. [PubMed]
  • Marmulla R, Niederdellmann H. Computer-assisted bone segment navigation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1998 Dec;26(6):347–359. [PubMed]
  • Cutting C, Grayson B, McCarthy JG, Thorne C, Khorramabadi D, Haddad B, Taylor R. A virtual reality system for bone fragment positioning in multisegment craniofacial surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Dec;102(7):2436–2443. [PubMed]
  • Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes, and lines used in cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod. 1966 Sep;52(9):637–651. [PubMed]
  • Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):111–127. [PubMed]
  • Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971 Nov;60(5):505–517. [PubMed]
  • THUROW RC. Cephalometric methods in research and private practice. Angle Orthod. 1951 Apr;21(2):104–116. [PubMed]
  • Hall DL, Bollen AM. A comparison of sonically derived and traditional cephalometric values. Angle Orthod. 1997;67(5):365–372. [PubMed]

Articles from Skull Base are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers