Yüzün Sagittal Yön Sınıflamasında Kullanılan AçılarınKarşılaştırılması: Sefalometrik Çalışma

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı yüzün sagittal yön sınıflamasındakullanılan sefalometrik ölçümlerin farklı malokluzyon tiplerindetanısal güvenilirliklerini ve geçerliliklerini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada 65 kız (yaşortalaması 15.3 ± 1.22) ve 65 erkek (yaş ortalaması 15.4 ± 1.92)toplam 130 hastanın ortodontik diagnostik kayıtları ve başlangıçsefalometrik radyografları çalışma materyali olarak belirlenmiştir.Çalışma materyali ANB açısına göre Sınıf 1 (ANB 0-4 ̊arası), Sınıf 2(ANB> 4 ̊) ve Sınıf 3 (ANB ≤ 0 ̊) olmak üzere üç gruba ayrılmıştır.Sefalometrik radyografilerde ANB, Witts, Beta açısı, W açısı ve Yenaçısı ölçümleri yapılmıştır. Cinsiyetlere göre ölçümlerinkarşılaştırılmasında Student t-Testi; ölçümlerin sınıflara görekarşılaştırılmasında Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi Tekniği kullanılmıştır.Yüzün sagittal yön sınıflamasında kullanılan açılar arasındakiilişkilerin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla Pearson’un korelasyon analizikullanılmıştır. Yapılan ölçümlerin güvenilirliğini değerlendirmekamacıyla da Tekrarlanabilirlik katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular: 5 ölçüm bakımından cinsiyet ortalamaları arasındakifarklar istatistiksel olarak önemli değildir. Yapılan tüm analizler, herüç iskeletsel grup için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark göstermiştir(p

Comparison of Angles Used in Sagittal Classification OfThe Face: A Cephalometric Study

Background: The aim of this study was to examine thediagnostic reliability and validity of cephalometricmeasurements used in sagittal directional measurements ofthe face in different types of maloclusion. Methods: In this retrospective study, orthodontic diagnosticrecords and initial cephalometric radiographs of 65 girls(mean age 15.3 ± 1.22) and 65 boys (mean age 15.4 ± 1.92)were determined as study materials. The study material isdivided into three groups according to ANB angle as Class 1(ANB 0-4 ̊), Class 2 (ANB> 4 ̊) and Class 3 (ANB ≤ 0 ̊). ANB,Witts, Beta angle, W angle and Yen angle cephalometricmeasurements were taken. Student t-Test was used to compare measurements bygender. One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to comparemeasurements by classes. To evaluate the relationshipsbetween the angles, Pearson's Correlation Analysis was used.Repeatability coefficients were also calculated in order toevaluate the reliability of the measurements. Results: The differences between genders are not statisticallysignificant. All analyses showed a statistically significantdifference for all three skeletal groups (p

PDF

___

1. Wylie WL. The assessment of anteroposterior dysplasia. Angle Orthod 1947;17(3):97-109.
2. Riedel RA. Esthetics and its relation to orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 1950;20(3):168-78.
3. Jacobson A. The ‘‘Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67(2):125-38.
4. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagit¬tal discrepancies: The beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004;126:100-5.
5. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL, Guire KE. The concept of pattern in craniofacial growth. Am J Orthod 1979;76:136– 48.
6. Nanda R. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics . Elsevier, St.Louis. pp. 2005;38-73.
7. Nanda RS. The rates of growth of several facial components measured from serial cephalometric roentgenograms . Am J Orthod 1955;41:658-73.
8. Moore RN, DuBois LM, Boice PA, Igel KA. The accuracy of measuring condylion location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:344-47.
9. Enlow DH. A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth. Am J Orthod 1966;2:283-99.
10.Binder R E 1979 The geometry of cephalometrics . J Clin Orthod 1979;13:258-63.
11.Richardson M. Measurement of dental base relationship . Eur J Orthod 1982;4:251-6.
12.Frank S. The occlusal plane: reliability of its cephalometric location and its changes with growth [thesis] . University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. (1983).
13.Sherman SL, Woods M , Nanda RS. The longitudinal effects of growth on the ‘ Wits ’ appraisal . Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;93:429-36.
14.Rushton R, Cohen AM, Linney FD. The relationship and reproducibility of angle ANB and the ‘Wits’ appraisal . British J Orthod1991;18:225-31.
15.Haynes S, Chau M. The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;10:640-7.
16.Nanda RS, Merrill RM. Cephalometric assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;105:328-44.
17.Arvysts MG. Nonextraction treatment of severe Class II division 2 malocclusion: part 1. Am Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990;97:510-21.
18.Erverdi N. A cephalometric study of changes in point A under the influence of upper incisor inclination. J Nihon University School of Dentistry 1991;33:160-5.
19.Adenwalla ST, Kronman JH, Attarzadeh F. Porion and condyle as cephalometric landmarks: an error study . Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;94:411-5.
20.Moore RN, DuBois LM, Boice PA, Igel KA. The accuracy of measuring condylion location Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;95:344-7.
21.Ghafari J, Baumrind S, Efstratiadis SS. Misinterpreting growth and treatment outcome from serial cephalographs. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:102-6.
22.Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the yen angle. World J Orthod 2009;10:147-51.
23.Bhad WA, Nayak S, Doshi UH. A new approach of assessing sagittal dysplasia: the W angle. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(1):66-70.
24.Williams S, Leighton BC, Nielsen JH. Linear evaluation of the development of sagittal jaw relationship. Am J Orthod 1985;88:235-41.
25.Jacobson A. Update on the Wits appraisal. Angle Orthod 1988;57:205-19.
26.Ishikawa H, Nakamura S, Iwasaki H, Kitazawa S. Seven parameters describing anteroposterior jaw relationships: postpubertal prediction accuracy and interchangeability. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;117(6):714-20.
27.Sachdeva K, Singla A, Mahajan V, Jaj H, Seth V, Nanda M. Comparison of different angular measurements to assess sagittal skeletal discrepancy: a cephalometric study. IJODS 2012;4(2): 27-30.
28.Qamruddin I, Shahid F, Firzok H, Maryam B, Tanwir A. Beta angle: a cephalometric analysis performed in a sample of pakistan population. JPDA 2012;21(04):206.
29.Fida M. A comparison of cephalometric analyses for assessing sagittal jaw relationship. J College Physicians Surg Pakistan 2008;18(11):679.
30.Kannan S, Goyaliya A, Gupta R. Comparative assessment of sagittal maxillo mandibular jaw relationship-a cephalometric study. J Oral Health Commun Dent 2012;6:14-7.
31.Doshi JR, Trivedi K, Shyagali T. Predictability of yen angle & appraisal of various cephalometric parameters in the assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible in angle’s class II malocclusion. People’s J Sci Res 2012;5(1):1-8.
32.Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the YEN angle. World J Orthod 2009;10(2):147.
33.Agarwal R, Sharma L, Soni VK, Yadav V, Soni S, Singh K. Comparison of different angular measurements to assess sagittal jaw discrepancy in Jaipur population- A cephalometric study. IOSR- J Dent Med Sci 2013;10(1):33-6.