Literature DB >> 28764295

Photographic Assessment of Cephalometric Measurements in Skeletal Class II Cases: A Comparative Study.

Pooja Mehta1, Roshan M Sagarkar2, Silju Mathew3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cephalometry has many limitations of which radiation exposure is most important. Hence, there is a need to resort to other safer methods which could give equal if not better results. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate the craniofacial measurements obtained from cephalometric radiographs and analogous measurements from standardized facial profile photographs in skeletal class II cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 lateral cephalograms and profile photographs of patients exhibiting skeletal class II malocclusion, in the age group of 19-25 years of age, were examined in this study using Dolphin software (version 11.8). A standardized protocol was followed for all the lateral cephalograms and photographs. A total of 15 parameters were studied in this study out of which seven were angular and eight were linear parameters. Angular parameters included Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle (FMA), Mandibular Plane-Occlusal Plane (MP-OP) angle, Occlusal Plane (OP) angle, gonial angle, ANB angle, facial angle and convexity whereas linear parameters included Anterior Facial Height (AFH), Ramal height, Posterior Facial Height: Anterior Facial Height (PFH/ AFH), convexity (in mm), Nasion perpendicular- Point A, Nasion perpendicular- Pogonion, Witts and Mandibular body length. All these parameters were digitised on both the cephalogram and photographs and were compared using one sample-2 tailed t-test, Pearson correlation coefficient. Bland-Altman Plot was considered to find comparison between the measurements from photographs and cephalograms in skeletal class II patients.
RESULTS: On comparing the angular cephalometric and photographic variables for the skeletal class II subjects we found the cephalometric parameters like FMA, MP-OP angle, OP, gonial angle, convexity (in degrees) to have an insignificant difference compared to the analogous photographic measurements. On comparing the linear cephalometric and photographic variables, it was found that all the cephalometric parameters like AFH, ramal height, PFH/AFH, N perp-Point A, N perp-Poghad a good relationship with the analogous photographic measurements.
CONCLUSION: The photographic method can be considered as a repeatable and reproducible method if a homogeneous protocol is followed. Thus, photographic measurements may reflect to be a rational and practical diagnostic substitute to measurements obtained from cephalograms in Class II malocclusion subjects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Angular parameters; Diagnosis; Dolphin software; Linear parameters; Natural head position

Year:  2017        PMID: 28764295      PMCID: PMC5534515          DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25042.10075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res        ISSN: 0973-709X


  12 in total

1.  Correlations between cephalometric and facial photographic measurements of craniofacial form.

Authors:  Xingzhong Zhang; Mark G Hans; Greg Graham; H Lester Kirchner; Susan Redline
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Comparison of anthropometry with photogrammetry based on a standardized clinical photographic technique using a cephalostat and chair.

Authors:  Kihwan Han; Hyuk Joon Kwon; Tae Hyun Choi; Jun Hyung Kim; Daegu Son
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2009-05-30       Impact factor: 2.078

3.  Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of healthy Turkish young adults: anthropometric measurements.

Authors:  Senem Turan Ozdemir; Deniz Sigirli; Ilker Ercan; N Simsek Cankur
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 2.326

4.  Photography versus lateral cephalogram: role in facial diagnosis.

Authors:  Dolly P Patel; Rahul Trivedi
Journal:  Indian J Dent Res       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct

5.  A computer assisted photogrammetric analysis of soft tissue changes after orthodontic treatment. Part II: Results.

Authors:  D M Cummins; S E Bishara; J R Jakobsen
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations.

Authors:  V F Ferrario; C Sforza; A Miani; G Tartaglia
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age.

Authors:  Francesca Romana Dimaggio; Veronica Ciusa; Chiarella Sforza; Virgilio F Ferrario
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta angle.

Authors:  Chong Yol Baik; Maria Ververidou
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Facial morphology and malocclusions.

Authors:  C Bittner; H Pancherz
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Photographic assessment of cephalometric measurements.

Authors:  Liliane de Carvalho Rosas Gomes; Karla Orfelina Carpio Horta; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini; Marcelo Gonçalves; João Roberto Gonçalves
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cephalometric Variables Prediction from Lateral Photographs Between Different Skeletal Patterns Using Regression Artificial Neural Networks.

Authors:  Saif Mauwafak Ali; Hayder Fadhil Saloom; Mohammed Ali Tawfeeq
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2022-06

2.  Reliability of Photogrammetric Landmarks to the Conventional Cephalogram for Analyzing Soft-Tissue Landmarks in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Pragya Jaiswal; Aniruddha Gandhi; Abhinav Raj Gupta; Nidhi Malik; Sanjay Kumar Singh; Kumar Ramesh
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2021-06-05

3.  Accuracy and Reproducibility of Facial Measurements of Digital Photographs and Wrapped Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Photographs.

Authors:  Maged Sultan Alhammadi; Abeer Abdulkareem Al-Mashraqi; Rayid Hussain Alnami; Nawaf Mohammad Ashqar; Omar Hassan Alamir; Esam Halboub; Rodolfo Reda; Luca Testarelli; Shankargouda Patil
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-23

4.  Titanium dioxide dental implants surfaces related oxidative stress in bone remodeling: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elaf Akram Abdulhameed; Natheer H Al-Rawi; Marzuki Omar; Nadia Khalifa; A B Rani Samsudin
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables.

Authors:  Shraddha Gupta; Pradeep Tandon; Gyan P Singh; Dipti Shastri
Journal:  Natl J Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-04-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.