PurposeThe aim this study was to compare the accuracy of orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists in identifying 17 commonly used cephalometric landmarks, and to determine the extent of variability associated with each of those landmarks.Materials and MethodsTwenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by two groups of dental specialists, and 17 cephalometric landmarks were identified. The x and y coordinates of each landmark were recorded. The mean value for each landmark was considered the best estimate and used as the standard. Variation in measurements of the distance between landmarks and measurements of the angles associated with certain landmarks was also assessed by a subset of two observers, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were evaluated.ResultsIntraclass correlation coefficients were excellent for intraobserver agreement, but only good for interobserver agreement. The least reliable landmark for orthodontists was the gnathion (Gn) point (standard deviation [SD], 5.92 mm), while the orbitale (Or) was the least reliable landmark (SD, 4.41 mm) for dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Furthermore, the condylion (Co)-Gn plane was the least consistent (SD, 4.43 mm).ConclusionWe established that some landmarks were not as reproducible as others, both horizontally and vertically. The most consistently identified landmark in both groups was the lower incisor border, while the least reliable points were Co, Gn, Or, and the anterior nasal spine. Overall, a lower level of reproducibility in the identification of cephalometric landmarks was observed among orthodontists.
The aim was to assess perceived stress (PS) and factors associated with PS in Russian medical and dental students. A total of 406 medical and 283 dental students aged 18–25 years that attended the Northern State Medical University in Arkhangelsk, North-West Russia participated in this cross-sectional study. A structured, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on socio-demographic and socioeconomic factors, oral health (OH) behavior, and self-reported OH. All students were clinically examined to assess dental caries, oral hygiene, and gingiva. PS was measured by the Perceived Stress Scale 10 (PSS-10). Of the students, 26.0%, 69.1%, and 4.9% reported low, moderate, and high PS, respectively. Female sex (b = 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–3.18), dental faculty (b = 1.74, 95% CI: 0.94–2.54), low subjective socioeconomic status (SES) (b = 1.71, 95% CI: 0.91–2.51), and irregular dental visits (b = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.72–2.58) were associated with higher PSS-10 score. These factors were assumed to be clinical meaningful, given that minimal clinically important difference of PSS-10 fell between 2.19 and 2.66 points. The majority of the medical and dental students reported moderate PS. Based on statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness, socio-demographic factors (sex, faculty), subjective SES, and OH behavior (regularity of dental visits) were associated with PS.
Despite the existence of a free-of-charge dental service, more than one-quarter of the subjects in the present study had at least one molar with DCL-CC.
SkullAccuracy Reliability a b s t r a c t Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) cephalometric analysis when compared to "gold standard" measurements on skulls. Also to appraise the reliability of 10 linear measurements commonly used in 2D lateral cephalometric analysis.Methods: Twenty dry human skulls and its digital lateral cephalometric images of were taken.The skulls were positioned in an aluminum filter box to mimic soft tissue attenuation.Ten linear measurements were performed both in skulls and radiographs by 2 observers (experienced dentomaxillofacial radiologists). The same procedure was repeated twice, with 1 month interval, to allow calculation of the intra-and inter-observer variability.Results: Statistically significant differences were found between cephalometric and direct craniometric measurements. In general, measurements were on average lower in skulls with exception of three that were on average significantly higher (Co-Gn, Go-Me, Co-ANS). When a bilateral landmark was included, measurements were significantly higher. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between measurements by the two observers (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Radiographic linear measurements systematically overestimated the direct linear measurements performed on the skulls. However, differences found were most often <1 mm, which is generally within one standard deviation of "normal" values in conventional cephalometric analysis. It is assumed that such differences are often clinically acceptable, yet further studies are encouraged to evaluate the impact on cephalometry-based therapy planning. 136 r e v p o r t e s t o m a t o l m e d d e n t c i r m a x i l o f a c . 2 0 1 4;5 5(3):135-141 Fiabilidade da análise cefalométrica em 2D em ortodontia Palavras-chave: Cefalometria Ortodontia Radiografia Crânio Precisão Fiabilidade r e s u m oObjectivos: Para avaliar a precisão da análise cefalométrica bidimensional (2D) quando comparada com as mediç ões de "padrão ouro" em crânios. Também para avaliar a fiabilidade de dez mediç ões lineares, normalmente usadas na análise cefalométrica lateral 2D.Métodos: Vinte crânios humanos secos e foram tiradas fotografias da sua cefalometria lateral digital. Os crânios foram colocados numa caixa do filtro de alumínio para simular a atenuação de tecidos moles. Foram realizadas dez mediç ões lineares em ambos os crânios e radiografias por 2 observadores (radiologistas dento-maxilo-faciais experientes). O mesmo procedimento foi repetido duas vezes, com 1 mês de intervalo, para permitir o cálculo da variabilidade inter e intraobservadores.Resultados: Foram encontradas diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre as mediç ões cefalométrica e directa craniométrica. Em geral, as mediç ões foram, em média, inferiores em crânios, com a excepção de três que foram, em média, significativamente superiores (Co-Gn, Go-Me, Co-ANS). Quando foi incluído um marco bilateral, as mediç ões foram significativamente superiores. Além disso, não foram encontradas diferenças significativ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.