Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ahmed,Maheen
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Shaikh,Attiya, Fida,Mubassar
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000500075
Resumo: Abstract Introduction: Numerous cephalometric analyses have been proposed to diagnose the sagittal discrepancy of the craniofacial structures. Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the reliability and validity of different skeletal analyses for the identification of sagittal skeletal pattern. Methods: A total of 146 subjects (males = 77; females = 69; mean age = 23.6 ± 4.6 years) were included. The ANB angle, Wits appraisal, Beta angle, AB plane angle, Downs angle of convexity and W angle were used to assess the anteroposterior skeletal pattern on lateral cephalograms. The sample was classified into Class I, II and III groups as determined by the diagnostic results of majority of the parameters. The validity and reliability of the aforementioned analyses were determined using Kappa statistics, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: A substantial agreement was present between ANB angle and the diagnosis made by the final group (k = 0.802). In the Class I group, Downs angle of convexity showed the highest sensitivity (0.968), whereas ANB showed the highest PPV (0.910). In the Class II group, ANB angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.928) and PPV (0.951). In the Class III group, the ANB angle, the Wits appraisal and the Beta angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.902), whereas the Downs angle of convexity and the ANB angle showed the highest PPV (1.00). Conclusion: The ANB angle was found to be the most valid and reliable indicator in all sagittal groups. Downs angle of convexity, Wits appraisal and Beta angle may be used as valid indicators to assess the Class III sagittal pattern.
id DPI-1_af4f56c459aed0ff304a65ef5c1ca664
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2176-94512018000500075
network_acronym_str DPI-1
network_name_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository_id_str
spelling Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal patternDiagnosisCephalometryReliabilityValidityAbstract Introduction: Numerous cephalometric analyses have been proposed to diagnose the sagittal discrepancy of the craniofacial structures. Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the reliability and validity of different skeletal analyses for the identification of sagittal skeletal pattern. Methods: A total of 146 subjects (males = 77; females = 69; mean age = 23.6 ± 4.6 years) were included. The ANB angle, Wits appraisal, Beta angle, AB plane angle, Downs angle of convexity and W angle were used to assess the anteroposterior skeletal pattern on lateral cephalograms. The sample was classified into Class I, II and III groups as determined by the diagnostic results of majority of the parameters. The validity and reliability of the aforementioned analyses were determined using Kappa statistics, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: A substantial agreement was present between ANB angle and the diagnosis made by the final group (k = 0.802). In the Class I group, Downs angle of convexity showed the highest sensitivity (0.968), whereas ANB showed the highest PPV (0.910). In the Class II group, ANB angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.928) and PPV (0.951). In the Class III group, the ANB angle, the Wits appraisal and the Beta angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.902), whereas the Downs angle of convexity and the ANB angle showed the highest PPV (1.00). Conclusion: The ANB angle was found to be the most valid and reliable indicator in all sagittal groups. Downs angle of convexity, Wits appraisal and Beta angle may be used as valid indicators to assess the Class III sagittal pattern.Dental Press International2018-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000500075Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.23 n.5 2018reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.075-081.oarinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAhmed,MaheenShaikh,AttiyaFida,Mubassareng2018-11-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512018000500075Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2018-11-01T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
title Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
spellingShingle Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
Ahmed,Maheen
Diagnosis
Cephalometry
Reliability
Validity
title_short Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
title_full Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
title_fullStr Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
title_sort Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern
author Ahmed,Maheen
author_facet Ahmed,Maheen
Shaikh,Attiya
Fida,Mubassar
author_role author
author2 Shaikh,Attiya
Fida,Mubassar
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ahmed,Maheen
Shaikh,Attiya
Fida,Mubassar
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Diagnosis
Cephalometry
Reliability
Validity
topic Diagnosis
Cephalometry
Reliability
Validity
description Abstract Introduction: Numerous cephalometric analyses have been proposed to diagnose the sagittal discrepancy of the craniofacial structures. Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the reliability and validity of different skeletal analyses for the identification of sagittal skeletal pattern. Methods: A total of 146 subjects (males = 77; females = 69; mean age = 23.6 ± 4.6 years) were included. The ANB angle, Wits appraisal, Beta angle, AB plane angle, Downs angle of convexity and W angle were used to assess the anteroposterior skeletal pattern on lateral cephalograms. The sample was classified into Class I, II and III groups as determined by the diagnostic results of majority of the parameters. The validity and reliability of the aforementioned analyses were determined using Kappa statistics, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: A substantial agreement was present between ANB angle and the diagnosis made by the final group (k = 0.802). In the Class I group, Downs angle of convexity showed the highest sensitivity (0.968), whereas ANB showed the highest PPV (0.910). In the Class II group, ANB angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.928) and PPV (0.951). In the Class III group, the ANB angle, the Wits appraisal and the Beta angle showed the highest sensitivity (0.902), whereas the Downs angle of convexity and the ANB angle showed the highest PPV (1.00). Conclusion: The ANB angle was found to be the most valid and reliable indicator in all sagittal groups. Downs angle of convexity, Wits appraisal and Beta angle may be used as valid indicators to assess the Class III sagittal pattern.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000500075
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000500075
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.075-081.oar
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.23 n.5 2018
reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
instname:Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron:DPI
instname_str Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron_str DPI
institution DPI
reponame_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
collection Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv artigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com
_version_ 1754122398136795136