EVALUATION OF SAGITTAL SKELETAL DYSPLASIA BY 3 CEPHALOMETRIC ANALYSIS METHODS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61581/Keywords:
Cephalometric parameters, Displasia, Sagittal, Jaw, AnglesAbstract
Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of various skeletal analyses for identifying sagittal skeletal patterns.
Methodology: Orthodontics department at Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan. Sixty individuals aged 17 to 25 years, with skeletal Class I, II, and III patterns were enrolled. For inclusion in these classes patients had to meet specific criteria for the Beta angle along with one of two measurements: the ANB angle or the Wits appraisal.
Results: In Class I, sensitivity values for ANB, Wits appraisal, Beta angle, AB plane angle, Downs angle of convexity, and W angle were 82.6%, 52.2%, 69.6%, 91.3%, 95.7%, and 52.2%, respectively, with positive predictive values of 45.2%, 37.5%, 51.6%, 51.2%, 51.2%, and 44.4%.
Conclusion: The Down’s angle of convexity has been identified as the most reliable and valid indicator across all sagittal groups, with particular effectiveness in evaluating individuals with a Class I sagittal pattern. Meanwhile, the ANB angle and the AB angle serve as reliable indicators for assessing sagittal discrepancies, making them useful tools for identifying Class II and Class III sagittal patterns.
Downloads
References
1. Gandhi KK, Rai A. Novel cephalometric parameters for the assessment of vertical skeletal dysplasia. Journal of Orthodontic Science. 2022 Jan 1;11(1):38.
2. Kotuła J, Kuc AE, Lis J, Kawala B, Sarul M. New sagittal and vertical cephalometric analysis methods: A systematic review. Diagnostics. 2022 Jul 15;12(7):1723.
3. Roy P, Roy P, Koley S. Comparative Assessment of Various Cephalometric Parameters Used for Determining Vertical Skeletal Dysplasia. Cureus. 2024 Feb;16(2): e55101.
4. Broadbent HH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1:45-66.
5. Reidel RA. Esthetics and its relation to orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 1950; 20:168-78.
6. Jacobson A. Application of the Wits appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976; 70:179-80.
7. Ralte L, Singh GK, Singh A, Sharma VK. Assessment of chin morphology in different skeletal dysplasia–A cross-sectional study. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2022 May 1;13(2):229-33.
8. Gowda SV, Roy PP, Rajesh RN, Kondody RT, Shajan J, Vishwakarma S. Evaluation of Reliability of Various Cephalometric Angles for Assessing Sagittal Jaw Dysplasia in Different Skeletal Pattern: A Cephalometric Study. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. 2021 Dec 30:617-26.
9. Jedliński M, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Grocholewicz K. Description of the sagittal jaw relation in cephalometric analysis–a review of literature. Pomeranian Journal of Life Sciences. 2020 Apr 1;66(2):25-31.
10. Fida M. A comparison of cephalometric analyses for assessing sagittal jaw relationship. Journal of The College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2008;18(11):679.
11. Bishnoi A, Kamat NV. New Method to Assess Sagittal Jaw Position: TWM and TWG Angles: A Cephalometric Study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2023 Oct;57(4):286-91.
12. Ertty E, Méndez-Manjón I, Haas Jr OL, Hernández-Alfaro F, Meloti F. Definition of new three-dimensional cephalometric analysis of maxillomandibular sagittal relationship for orthodontics and orthognathic surgery: Normative data based on 700 CBCT scans. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2023 Jun 1;34(4):1291-5.
13. Dubey J, Kallury A, Balani RK, Bharti C, Dubey C. A Chronicle Overview of Cephalometric Parameters for assessing Sagittal Jaw Disparity. Orthodontic Journal of Nepal. 2021 Dec 31;11(2):72-9.
14. 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; 117:714-20.
15. Gul-e-Erum, Fida M. A comparison of cephalometric analyses for assessing sagittal jaw relationship. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008 Nov;18(11):679-83.
16. Kumar V., Sundareswaran S. Cephalometric Assessment of Sagittal Dysplasia: A Review of Twenty-One Methods. J. Indian Orthod. Soc. 2014;48:33–41.
17. Ali S.M., Manjunath G., Sheetal A. A Comparison of 3 New Cephalometric Angles with ANB and Wits Appraisal for Assessing Sagittal Jaw Relationship. Int. J. Oral Care Res. 2018;6:28–32,.
18. Hatewar S.K., Reddy G.H., Singh J.R., Jain M., Munje S., Khandelwal P. A new dimension to cephalometry: DW plane. J. Indian Orthod. Soc. 2015;49:206–212.
19. Shetty S.K., Desai S.J., Kumar M., Madhur V.K., Alphonsa B.M. Cephalometric assessment of anteroposterior discrepancy: A review of different analyses in chronological order. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2018;23:75–81.
20. Ahmed M., Shaikh A., Fida M. Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern. Dental Press J. Orthod. 2018;23:75–81.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Saba Habib, Waqas Ahmad Khan, Zubair Hassan Awaisi, Amna Malik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
