Photographic Assessment of Cephalometric Measurements in Skeletal Class II Cases: A Comparative Study
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...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2017-06-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/10075/25042_CE[Ra]_F(Sh)_PF1(RU_VT_RB)_PFA(P_RB).pdf |
| Summary: | 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 PlaneOcclusal 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |