Journals / Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / 2020 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 1

Is Cephalometric Analysis Reliable in Cases with Cleft Lip and Palate?

Pages
27–37
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Reliability limits are especially important in cephalometric measurements on individuals with cleft lip and palate in terms of guiding clinicians.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to test the reliability of the cephalometric measurements made on lateral cephalometric radiographs in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients (UCLP).Material and Method: The study was carried out on a total of 30 lateral cephalometric images belonging to 15 male patients (mean age: 17.3 ± 5.2 years) and 15 female patients (mean age: 16.8 ± 6.1) who had unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCCLP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:By utilizing 9 different methods of cephalometric analysis, measurements were made for 94 parameters including skeletal, soft tissue and dental parameters.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Reliability limits are especially important in cephalometric measurements on individuals with cleft lip and palate in terms of guiding clinicians.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study is to test the reliability of the cephalometric measurements made on lateral cephalometric radiographs in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients (UCLP).Material and Method: The study was carried out on a total of 30 lateral cephalometric images belonging to 15 male patients (mean age: 17.3 ± 5.2 years) and 15 female patients (mean age: 16.8 ± 6.1) who had unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCCLP). By utilizing 9 different methods of cephalometric analysis, measurements were made for 94 parameters including skeletal, soft tissue and dental parameters. The measurements were made by 3 researchers (2 inexperienced, 1 experienced) on a computer program; Dolphin Imaging Software 11.7. Paired samples t-test was used to assess intra-observer and inter- observer reliability.Results: In the skeletal measurements, the intra-observer reliability was high in the LAFH (ANS-Me) (mm), in SNA(o); Witz (mm); U1-FH (o), Nasal Prominence (mm) measurements among the inexperienced researchers (H1-H2) (E1-E2) and the experienced researcher (S1-S2). The increase in the confidence interval values between two researchers (one experienced, one inexperienced) was high.Conclusion: Cephalometric analysis is very important in diagnosis and treatment planning in patients with CLP. Particular attention should be paid to marking Na, A, ANS, Subnasal and U1 points which are located in the cleft areas. Reliability limits are especially important in cephalometric measurements on individuals with cleft lip and palate in terms of guiding clinicians.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, E., ÇINARCIK, H., DOĞAN, S., DİNDAROĞLU, F. (2020). Is Cephalometric Analysis Reliable in Cases with Cleft Lip and Palate?. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 1, 27–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/149176

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Kragskov J, Bosch G, Gyldensted C, Sindet-PedersenS. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997
  2. 3(34):111-116. 2-Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: Historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod. 1999
  3. :491-506. 3-Rakosi T. Cephalometric radiography. London: Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd. 1982
  4. :223. 4-Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, ReuterI.Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop. 2000
  5. Sam A, Currie K, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravere- Vich M. Reliability of different three-dimensionalcephalometric landmarks in cone-beam computedtomography: A systematic review., Angle Orthod. 2018 Nov 13. doi: 10.2319/042018-302.1. 6-Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, Sardana HK. Automatic localization of three-dimensionalcephalometric landmarks on CBCT imagesby extracting symmetry features of the skull.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018 Feb
  6. 47(2):20170054. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170054. Epub 2018 Jan 3. 7-Midtgård J, Björk G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod. 1974
  7. :56-61. 8-Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S.: Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three- dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Jul
  8. Mølsted K, Brattstro ̈m V, Prahl-Andersen B, Shaw WC, Semb G. The Eurocleft study. Intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete uni- lateral cleft lip and palate. Part 3: Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004
  9. :78–82. 10-Aras I, Altan AB, Doğan S, Yetkiner E.: Evaluation of the Modified True Vertical Line in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2016
  10. :92-96. 11-Björk A. The face in profile. Svensk Tandlaekare- Tidskrift, Vol. 40
  11. B, suppl. Berlingska, Boktrykeriet, Lund, 1947. 12-Downs WB. Analysis of the dento-facial profile. Am J Orthod. 1956
  12. :191-212. 13-HoldawayRA.A soft-tissuecephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am JOrthod. 1984