Embedded Files
Evaluating Diagnostic Validity of Various Sagittal Cephalometric Parameters (a Comparative Retrospective Study)
Saya Mustafa Azeez *, Ribwar F. Khalid**
*Orthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishk International University, Erbil, Iraq.
**Diagnosis and Radiology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishk International University, Erbil, Iraq.
Submitted: September 18, 2021, Accepted: February 22, 2022, Published: June 1, 2022.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10147
Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of numerous skeletal analyses for determining the sagittal skeletal pattern.
Methods: A total of 105 cephalometric x-rays were used. The Steiner’s ANB angle, anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI), and angle of convexity by Down’s assessed the anteroposterior skeletal pattern. According to the diagnostic results of the majority of the criteria, the samples were divided into three classes: I, II, and III. The analyses' validity and reliability were assessed using Kappa statistics, positive predictive value, and sensitivity.
Results: There was a moderate agreement between the ANB angle and the final diagnosis (K= 0.593). The ANB angle demonstrated the highest sensitivity in class II and III groups (1.00).
Conclusions: The ANB angle and down's angle of convexity was the most accurate markers for class I and III groups, respectively, while the Down's angle of convexity and APDI were the most accurate indicators for class III group.
Keywords: Cephalometry, Maxilla, Mandible, Malocclusion.
Abstract
References:
1. De Sena LMF, De Sena PPM, Pereira HSG. Cephalometric analysis: orthodontists versus oral radiologists. J World Fed. Orthod. 2016;5(1):18- 21.
2. Medina IPG, Perez DAA, Ruiz GEC, Herrera IDZ, Ramirez ME, Atoche JRH, Chavez JAR, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic agreement among cephalometric measurements for determining incisor position and inclination. Int. J. Morphol. 2020;38(5):1386-91.
3. Devereux L, Moles D, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(2):175-81.
4. Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(2):69-91.
5. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier. 2019.
6. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Assessment of the facial profile: the correlation between various cephalometric analyses and the soft tissue angle of convexity. JPDA. 2017;26(2):59-66.
7. Bock JJ, Fuhrmann RA. Evaluation of vertical parameters in cephalometry. J Orofac Orthop. 2007;68(3):210-22.
8. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod. 1948;34(10):812-40.
9. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1958;22(3):142-5.
10. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953; 39(1):720-55.
11. Freeman RS. Adjusting A-N-B angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. The Angle orthod. 1981;51(2):162-71.
12. Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 1975;67(2):125-38.
13. Haynes S, Chau MN. The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(6):640-7.
14. Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod. 1978;73(6):619-33.
15. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Diagnostic Validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23(5):75-81.
16. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic cephalometry. 2nd edition. Quintessence publishing co.;2006. P.125-28.
17. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):100-5.
18. Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle orthod. 1931;1(2):45-66.
19. Ishikawa H, Nakamura S, Iwasaki H, Kitazawa S. Seven parameters describing anteroposterior jaw relationships: postpubertal prediction accuracy and interchangeability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(6):714-20.
20. Trivedi R, Bhattacharya A, Mehta F, Patel D, Parekh H, Gandhi V. Cephalometric study to test the reliability of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy indicators using the twin block appliance. Prog Orthod. 2015;16(3):1-10.
21. Tanaka JLO, Ono E, Filho EM, de Moraes LC, de Melo JC, de Moraes MEL. Influence of the facial pattern on ANB, AF-BF, and Wits appraisal. World J Orthod. 2006;7(4):369-75.
22. Zupančič, S, Pohar M, Farčnik F, Ovsenik M. Overjet as a predictor of sagittal skeletal relationships, Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(3):269-73. 23. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360-3.
© The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Page updated
Report abuse