Literature DB >> 18675204

Discriminatory ability of the skeletal maturation index and the cervical vertebrae maturation index in detecting peak pubertal growth in Indonesian and white subjects with receiver operating characteristics analysis.

Benny M Soegiharto1, David R Moles, Susan J Cunningham.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of the skeletal maturation index (SMI) and the cervical vertebrae maturation (CVM) index in discriminating between patients who have yet to attain their peak pubertal growth, compared with those who have reached or passed it. An additional aim was to determine whether there was any significant difference in the ability of the 2 methods to predict peak pubertal growth.
METHODS: The study included 2167 patients with hand-wrist and lateral cephalometric radiographs. There were 648 Indonesian boys and 303 white boys (age range, 10-17 years), and 774 Indonesian girls and 442 white girls (age range, 8-15 years). The SMI was used to evaluate the stages of skeletal maturity from hand-wrist radiographs, and the CVM index was used to evaluate skeletal maturity from lateral cephalograms. Several commonly used cephalometric parameters representing maxillary and mandibular dimensions were also measured to construct growth curves and calculate peak velocity.
RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for the craniofacial morphology parameters for both sex and ethnic groups. The percentages of correctly classified subjects into the appropriate maturational stages for the mandibular parameters, as well as the stages with high sensitivity values for the maxillary parameters, showed that both the CVM index and the SMI have good discriminatory ability. On average, the results of the area under curve (AUC) for the SMI (AUC >0.9) were greater than for the CVM (AUC >0.8), and the differences between them were also statistically significant (P <0.05 for all parameters investigated). However, the curves for both CVM and SMI approached the top left corner of the ROC graph, suggesting that both tests have good discriminatory ability, and the differences between the methods were only between 1% and 7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the CVM index and the SMI are valid methods to discriminate between patients who have not yet attained peak pubertal growth and those who have reached or passed it. The differences in discriminatory ability between the SMI and the CVM index in detecting peak pubertal growth were small. These results question the necessity of taking hand-wrist radiographs and exposing a child to additional radiation when the discriminatory ability is similar with the CVM index, which is readily derived from most lateral cephalograms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18675204     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  17 in total

1.  Cervical vertebrae maturation index estimates on cone beam CT: 3D reconstructions vs sagittal sections.

Authors:  Marco A E Bonfim; André L F Costa; Acácio Fuziy; Michel E L Ximenez; Flávio A Cotrim-Ferreira; Rívea I Ferreira-Santos
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Comparison of three methods to assess individual skeletal maturity.

Authors:  Enzo Pasciuti; Lorenzo Franchi; Tiziano Baccetti; Silvano Milani; Giampietro Farronato
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Serum insulin-like growth factor-1 levels in females and males in different cervical vertebral maturation stages.

Authors:  Shreya Gupta; Anuradha Deoskar; Puneet Gupta; Sandhya Jain
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr

4.  Are cervical vertebrae suitable for age estimation?

Authors:  B Gelbrich; M Fischer; A Stellzig-Eisenhauer; G Gelbrich
Journal:  J Forensic Odontostomatol       Date:  2017-12-01

5.  New software for cervical vertebral geometry assessment and its relationship to skeletal maturation--a pilot study.

Authors:  R C Santiago; A R Cunha; G C Júnior; N Fernandes; M J S Campos; L F M Costa; R W F Vitral; A M Bolognese
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Comparison of abnormalities in the sequence of growth stages in the skeletal maturity index vs cervical vertebral maturation.

Authors:  David D Chung; Sepand Ghanouni
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 2.684

7.  Efficacy of the Cervical Vertebral Maturation Method: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alessandra Lucchese; Lars Bondemark; Marco Farronato; Gaia Rubini; Enrico Felice Gherlone; Antonino Lo Giudice; Maurizio Manuelli
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2022-03

Review 8.  Cervical vertebral maturation as a biologic indicator of skeletal maturity.

Authors:  Rodrigo César Santiago; Luiz Felipe de Miranda Costa; Robert Willer Farinazzo Vitral; Marcelo Reis Fraga; Ana Maria Bolognese; Lucianne Cople Maia
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Visual assessment of the cervical vertebral maturation stages: A study of diagnostic accuracy and repeatability.

Authors:  Giuseppe Perinetti; Alberto Caprioglio; Luca Contardo
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Evaluation of the pelvic apophysis with multi-detector computed tomography for legal age estimation in living individuals.

Authors:  Mehdi Karami; Meisam Rabiei; Maryam Riahinezhad
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.852

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.