Agreement Between Two Cephalometric Analyses of Facial Growth Direction and Biotype (2024)

<< Back

Odovtos-Int J Dent Sc 2024; 26 (2)

Language: English
References: 24
Page: 167-176
PDF size: 441.35 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Cephalometry is a morphological and descriptive diagnostic method that provides relevant data on skeletal and dentoalveolar malocclusions of patients seeking orthodontics treatment. Several authors have proposed different cephalometric measurements to determine facial growth direction and facial biotype, the results of these different measurements from the same patient do not always agree on the diagnosis. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between Ricketts and Björk-Jarabak cephalometric analyses for the determination of facial growth direction and facial biotype in patients from a population of Yucatan, Mexico. A total of 260 lateral cephalograms of patients between 18 and 59 years of age were digitally traced using the Ricketts and Björk-Jarabak cephalometric analyses to determine the direction of facial growth and facial biotype using Dolphin Imagine software. Cohen's kappa statistical test was performed to establish the strength of agreement between the diagnostic results obtained by the cephalometric analyses. A poor diagnostic concordance strength was found for growth direction (K=0.105), and acceptable for facial biotype (K=0.362). The concordance strengths for each diagnostic possibility (level) ranged from slight to acceptable, except for the brachyfacial and dolichofacial biotypes, with a moderate strength of agreement. In conclusion, the Ricketts and Björk-Jarabak cephalometric measurements used for the determination of facial biotype and facial growth direction could suggest non-concordant diagnostic assessments in some individuals.

REFERENCES

1. Lemes C.R., Tozzi C.F., Gribel S., Gribel B.F.,Venezian G.C., do Carmo Menezes C., et al.Mandibular ramus height and condyle distanceasymmetries in individuals with differentfacial growth patterns: a cone-beam computedtomography study. Surg Radiol Anat [Internet]. 2021; 43 (2): 267-74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-020-02577-6

2. Tunis T.S., May H., Sarig R., VardimonA.D., Hershkovitz I., Shpack N. Are chin andsymphysis morphology facial type-dependent?A computed tomography-based study.Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2021; 160(1): 84-93.

3. Tsunori M., Masamitsu M., Kazutaka K.Relationship between facial types and toothand bone characteristics of the mandibleobtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod.1998; 6 (August): 557-62.

4. Murugesan A., Jain R.K. A 3D comparison of dimension of infrazygomatic crest region in different vertical skeletal patterns: A retrospective study. Int Orthod [Internet]. 2020; 18 (4): 770-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2020.09.002

5. Quiudini P.R., Pozza D.H., Pinto A. dos S., de Arruda M.F., Guimarães A.S. Differences in bite force between dolichofacial and brachyfacial individuals: Side of mastication, gender, weight and height. J Prosthodont Res [Internet]. 2017; 61 (3): 283-9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.10.003

6. Luo L., He Y., Jin L., Zhang Y., Guastaldi F.P., Albashari A.A., et al. Application of bioactive hydrogels combined with dental pulp stem cells for the repair of large gap peripheral nerve injuries. Bioact Mater [Internet]. 2021; 6 (3): 638-54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.028

7. Alabdullah M., Saltaji H., Abou-Hamed H., Youssef M. Association between facial growth pattern and facial muscle activity: A prospective cross-sectional study. Int Orthod [Internet]. 2015; 13 (2): 181-94. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1761722715000236

8. Schudy F.F. The rotation of the mandible resulting from growth: its implications in orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1965; 35 (1): 36-50.

9. Mangla R., Singh N., Dua V., Padmanabhan P., Khanna M. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011; 2 (3): 200.

10. Kim D.K., Sung J., Song Y.M., Kim E.M., Kim Y.H., Baek S.H. Differences in heritability of craniofacial skeletal and dental characteristics between hypo- and hyper-divergent patterns using Falconer’s method and principal component analysis. Angle Orthod. 2019; 89 (2): 242-51.

11. Ahmed M., Shaikh A., Fida M. Diagnostic performance of various cephalometric parameters for the assessment of vertical growth pattern. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21 (4): 41-9.

12. Woods M.G. The mandibular muscles in contemporary orthodontic practice: a review. Aust Dent J. 2017; 62: 78-85.

13. Alarcón J.A., Velasco-Torres M., Rosas A., Galindo-Moreno P., Catena A. Relationship between vertical facial pattern and brain structure and shape. Clin Oral Investig [Internet]. 2020; 24 (4): 1499-508. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03227-2

14. Guerrero M., Ocampo J., Olate S. Comparison between Ricketts and McNamara Techniques for the Determination of the Maxilla and Mandible Position in Ecuadorian Youths. Int J Morphol. 2018; 36 (1): 169-74.

15. Pae E.-K., McKenna G.A., Sheehan T.J., Garcia R., Kuhlberg A., Nanda R. Role of lateral cephalograms in assessing severity and difficulty of orthodontic cases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2001; 120 (3): 254-62. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889540601808933

16. de Novaes Benedicto E., Kairalla S.A., Oliveira G.M.S., Junior L.R.M., Rosário H.D., Paranhos L.R. Determination of vertical characteristics with different cephalometric measurements. Eur J Dent. 2016; 10 (01): 116-20.

17. Medina-Grandez A.-F., Llontop-Palma L., Ruíz-Mora G.-A., Rodríguez-Cárdenas Y.-A., Aliaga-Del Castillo A., Dutra V., et al. Concordance of the facial biotype between Bjork-Jarabak cephalometrics and photographic analysis of the facial opening angle. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023; 15 (6): e454.

18. Ruz G.A., Araya-Díaz P., Henríquez P.A. Facial biotype classification for orthodontic treatment planning using an alternativelearning algorithm for tree augmented NaiveBayes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak [Internet].2022; 22 (1): 1-10. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-02062-7

19. Herreros del Pozo A., Jiménez Varo I.,Domingo Clérigues M., Nieto Sánchez I.,Aneiros Fernández L. Agreement betweenskeletal class and facial biotype betweendifferent cephalometric analysis. RevEspañola Ortod. 2017; 47 (3): 146-51.

20. Gómez-Medina I.P., Aguilar-Pérez D.A.,Colomé-Ruíz G.E., Zúñiga-Herrera I.D.,et al. Evaluation of Diagnostic AgreementAmong Cephalometric Measurements forDetermining Incisor Position and Inclination.Int. J. Morphol. 2020 ; Vol. 48 (5): 1386-91.

21. Ricketts R.M. Orthodontic Diagnosis andPlanning: Their roles in preventive andrehabilitative dentistry. Denver: RockyMountain/Orthodontics; 1982.

22. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurementof observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977; 33 (1):159-74.

23. Villanueva Tapia B.M., Castañeda Zetina J.,Aguilar Pérez F.J.A., Ruiz G.E.C., TraconisL.B.P., Atoche J.R.H. Skeletal class concordanceand sagittal position of the jaws bydifferent cephalometric measurements. RevOdontológica Mex. 2021; 24 (2): 99-107.

24. Qamaruddin I., Alam M.K., Shahid F., TanveerS., Umer M., Amin E. Comparison of popularsagittal cephalometric analyses for validity andreliability. Saudi Dent J. 2018; 30 (1): 43-6.