A new dimension to cephalometry: DW plane

Hatewar, Shruti K; Reddy, Gopal; Singh, Johar Rajvinder; Jain, Megha; Munje, Shridhar; Khandelwal, Piyush

doi:10.4103/0301-5742.171317

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study showed it to be accurate and reliable in diagnosing skeletal class I cases compared to class II and III cases, where it was least reliable, against the previous results (Gul et al, 2018). DW linear (Hatewar et al, 2015) measurement involves anterior cranial base tracing and a diagnostic quality cephalometric image is essential. The current study showed it to be less accurate and reliable in diagnosing skeletal discrepancy as compared to other linear parameters taken into consideration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A heuristic model for cephalometric diagnosis of sagittal dysplasia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify the best-suited cephalometric parameter for assessing the sagittal skeletal discrepancy in the Indian population. Design: An in vitro, observational, single-blinded, retrospective study. Setting: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics. Methods: A total of 94 lateral cephalograms were used in this study. The study involved one key person and two examiners. The key person collected the radiographs, coded, analysed and classified them into three groups (skeletal classes I, II and III). Subsequently, the coded radiographs were independently analysed by the two examiners. They classified the cases by matching a minimum of 6 out of 11 parameters. On completion of diagnosis by the examiners, the samples were decoded and matched with the original diagnosis given by the key person. The samples in which identification of a particular cephalometric parameter matched the original evaluation as given by the key person was regarded as correctly diagnosed. The number of correctly assessed cases was used to judge the diagnostic performance of all the parameters in all the cases. Cross-validation of the method was performed, and a diagnostic algorithm was developed for diagnosis. Results: β angle and Pi angle showed a positive predictive value of 1 in both skeletal class I and II cases. ANB angle, W angle and HBN angle showed a positive predictive value of 1 in skeletal class III cases. Conclusion: No single cephalometric parameter can independently be used to diagnose sagittal skeletal discrepancy in all cases. However, a conclusive diagnosis on the type of sagittal skeletal malocclusion can be made by using a simple and easy to use diagnostic algorithmic process having a combination of cephalometric parameters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DW linear (Hatewar et al, 2015) measurement involves anterior cranial base tracing and a diagnostic quality cephalometric image is essential. The current study showed it to be less accurate and reliable in diagnosing skeletal discrepancy as compared to other linear parameters taken into consideration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A heuristic model for cephalometric diagnosis of sagittal dysplasia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also found that (T-w) line is reliable method for examining overall changes (M. Arat et al, 2001;Z. M. Arat et al, 2010;Hatewar et al, 2015).…”

Section: Cephalometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

“…the growth of middle cranial base is completed in early periods and at the age of 7 years, maintaining its stability in all developmental phases (Björk and Skieller, 1983). Two cephalometric points located in the middle cranial base showed high stability over years (Björk and Skieller, 1983;Hatewar et al, 2015). The points are known to be as the following: the intersection point of the lower contours of the anterior clinoid processes and the contour of the anterior wall of the sella, also called as Walker's point (T, W), and the intersection point of the middle cranial fossa by the greater wing of the sphenoid bone, also called as Wing point (w) (Arat et al, 2010;Björk and Skieller, 1983).…”

Section: Cephalometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of Risk Factors for Severe Apical Root Resorption in the Maxillary Incisors Following Fixed Orthodontic Treatment

Shahrure

Açar

2022

Turk J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine the prevalence of severe external root resorption (Score 4 according to Malmgren et al.), in maxillary incisors, during fixed orthodontic treatment and to evaluate the possible predisposing factors for root resorption. Material and Methods: The treatment records of 7000 patients who have been treated between years 1990 and 2019 at the Department of Orthodontics Faculty of Dentistry Marmara University were examined to determine the prevalence and the predisposing factors of external root resorption. The following data was retrieved from the patients' records: age at the beginning of the treatment, gender, root morphology, overjet, overbite, treatment modality (extraction, non-extraction), treatment duration, buccal and palatal alveolar bone thickness for the maxillary incisors, and amount of movement of the incisal root apices and incisal edges. The relationship between root resorption and the predisposing factors was assessed using chi square and independent t-tests. Results: The prevalence of severe external root resorption was 3.23%, and the results have demonstrated significant difference between the groups for the variables: treatment modality (extractions), increased treatment duration, cortical thickness of the alveolar bone, and amount of incisor movement at the end of the treatment. Conclusion: It can be concluded that extractions, increased treatment duration, thin alveolar bone, and excessive incisor movement represent risk factors for severe root resorption in maxillary incisors following orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

“…Examples of such measurements include: YEN angle formed by the points S, M, G defining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible, first described by Neel et al in 2009 [ 10 ]. Pi analysis referring to the angular measurement Pi (GG`M) and the linear measurement Pi (G`M`) based on the points G, M from which the perpendicular goes to the true horizontal plane in the natural position of the head, defining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible [ 11 ], first described by Kumar et al in 2012 [ 12 ] W angle formed by the points S, M, G, defining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and mandible, first described by Bhad et al in 2011 [ 13 ] SAR angle formed by the points M, G, W, defining the sagittal jaw base discrepancy, described by Sonahita et al in 2015 [ 14 ] DW angle using Walker and Wing (WW) points to assess the sagittal discrepancy, described by Hatewar et al in 2015 [ 15 ] Tau angle formed by the points T, M, G, defining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible, first described by Gupta et al in 2020 [ 6 ] R angle formed by the points N, C, Me to assess the vertical discrepancy, first described by Rizwan and Mascarenhas in 2013 [ 16 ] KP (extraoral) plane and points NS, SAE bilaterally to assess the vertical discrepancy, first described by Kattan et al in 2018 [ 17 ] Superior border of the zygomatic arch to assess the vertical discrepancy as an alternative to the Frankfurt horizontal line introduced by Park et al in 2019 [ 18 ] …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Sagittal and Vertical Cephalometric Analysis Methods: A Systematic Review

Kotuła

Kuc²,

Lis³

et al. 2022

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The main objectives of correct cephalometric analysis include resolving anteroposterior and vertical maxillary and mandibular base discrepancies. For a diagnostic tool to be of value, it should be precise, reliable and reproducible. Unfortunately, according to some studies, the accuracy of input and, therefore, the diagnostic reliability of some of the points and measurements may not be satisfactory. To this end, new cephalometric measurements are being developed with increased precision. In order to properly and definitively determine the usefulness of a given measurement in cephalometric diagnosis, it is necessary to carry out a critical evaluation of available studies. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available scientific literature describing new landmarks and reference linear and angular measurements of 2D cephalometric analyses assessing the sagittal and vertical discrepancy in the position of jaw bases since the last systematic review in 2013. The secondary aim was to assess the accuracy and reliability of new anthropometric landmarks and reference planes in relation to those used previously, and their instability in relation to growth and orthodontic tooth movements. To carry out the intended plan, electronic databases such as PubMed, Scholar Google, Web of Science and Pro Quest were searched using specific keywords. Initially, a total of 1451 articles were retrieved. Then, duplicate articles in all databases were excluded from the resulting publications. The results showed that despite such a high number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, only 12 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the sagittal plane and 4 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the horizontal plane met the criteria and, as a result, were included in the review.

show abstract

A new dimension to cephalometry: DW plane

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

A heuristic model for cephalometric diagnosis of sagittal dysplasia

A heuristic model for cephalometric diagnosis of sagittal dysplasia

Evaluation of Risk Factors for Severe Apical Root Resorption in the Maxillary Incisors Following Fixed Orthodontic Treatment

New Sagittal and Vertical Cephalometric Analysis Methods: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About