Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements

Han, Unae Kim; Kim, Young H.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70265-3

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analogous results were found in the previous studies 11 12 , 15 In evaluating each component individually, the facial plane angle showed significant differences between dental Classes II and III. The lowest values were presented in cases of mandibular retrognathism, while the highest values were found in mandibular excess, indicating skeletal Class III pattern.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of overbite depth indicator (ODI) and anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) in the assessment of different vertical and sagittal dental malocclusions: a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis

Fatima¹,

Fida²,

Shaikh³

2016

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Differential diagnosis of skeletal and dental relationships is crucial for planning orthodontic treatment. Overbite depth indicator (ODI) and anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) had been introduced in the past for assessment of vertical and sagittal jaw relationships, respectively. Objective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the reliability of ODI and APDI in overbite and Angle malocclusions, as well as assess their diagnostic reliability among males and females of different age groups. Material and Methods: This study was conducted using pretreatment dental casts and lateral cephalograms of 90 subjects. For ODI, subjects were divided into three groups based on overbite (normal overbite, open bite and deep bite). Likewise, the same subjects were divided for APDI into three groups, based on Angle's malocclusion classification (dental Class I, II and III malocclusions). Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparison of study parameters regarding sex and different age groups. The mean values of ODI and APDI were compared among study groups by means of Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunnet T3 tests. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to test diagnostic reliability. Results: Insignificant differences were found for ODI and APDI angles, particularly in regards to sex and age. Significant intergroup differences were found in different overbite groups and Angle's classification for ODI and APDI, respectively (p < 0.001). ROC showed 91% and 88% constancy with dental pattern in ODI and APDI, respectively. Conclusions: ODI can reliably differentiate deep bite versus normal overbite and deep bite versus open bite. APDI can reliably differentiate dental Class I, II and III malocclusions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Reliability could be assessed by means of the ROC curve which describes efficacy in terms of sensitivity and specificity 15 . An ideal test shows a value of 1, while a test result of 0.5 or less indicates no diagnostic value 16 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of overbite depth indicator (ODI) and anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) in the assessment of different vertical and sagittal dental malocclusions: a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis

Fatima¹,

Fida²,

Shaikh³

2016

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The anteroposterior dysplasia indicator has been shown to have more diagnostic significance when comparing anteroposterior discrepancies. 28 To take the vertical dimension into consideration, the Class II and Class III samples were further divided into high-angle and low-angle classifications based on the Frankfort horizontal plane to mandibular plane angle (Table I) into and rendered with InVivo software (version 5.3.1; Anatomage, San Jose, Calif) to create a 3D image of the patient. The CBCT scans were taken with the patients standing up, with their heads positioned in Frankfort horizontal plane.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of maxillary 3-dimensional posterior occlusal plane to mandibular spatial position and morphology

Coro

Velásquez

Coro³

et al. 2016

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Han y Kim (25) realizaron un estudio transversal de casos y controles para evaluar la habilidad diagnóstica de distintas medidas cefalométricas en la identificación de alteraciones Clase II y III esqueletal. Éste se llevó a cabo en 967 pacientes de 8 a 17 años; 624 pacientes presentaban Clase II y 36 Clase III.…”

Section: Revisiónunclassified

“…Esto ha sido reportado por numerosos autores (24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) . Utilizando una muestra longitudinal, Ochoa y Nanda (30) evaluaron 28 individuos de ambos sexos y observaron que el ángulo ANB disminuye significativamente durante el crecimiento.…”

Section: Revisiónunclassified

Rendimiento de la evaluación cefalométrica para el diagnóstico sagital intermaxilar: Revisión narrativa

Arenas

Peralta

Weldt

2013

Rev. Clin. Periodoncia Implantol. Rehabil. Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENLas anomalías dentomaxilares sagitales son entidades clínicas altamente prevalentes, que afectan entre un 20% y un 40% de la población; en un gran porcentaje se deben a problemas esqueletales máxilo-mandibulares, y se caracterizan por alteraciones del resalte incisivo. Su relevancia radica en que cuando sus manifestaciones son severas, éstas generan alteraciones morfológicas que traen consecuencias funcionales, estéticas y psicológicas, tanto en niños como en adultos. La evaluación cuantitativa de las relaciones sagitales intermaxilares se realiza preferentemente con cefalometría, a través de mediciones que constituyen indicadores diagnósticos. Existen numerosos índices para la clasificación sagital intermaxilar, sin embargo, la información respecto de su valor diagnóstico es escasa, en términos de la sensibilidad y especificidad asociadas al uso de ellos. La presente revisión narrativa tiene por objetivo analizar el rendimiento de la evaluación cefalométrica como herramienta diagnóstica para la medición de la relación sagital intermaxilar en términos de sensibilidad y especificidad. En la actualidad no existe una sola prueba que reúna todas las características ideales para determinar con precisión si un individuo presenta una alteración sagital esqueletal. La información disponible referente a las propiedades de especificidad y sensibilidad de las mediciones cefalométricas sagitales intermaxilares como indicadores diagnósticos es escasa. Entre ellas, el ángulo ANB constituye una herramienta adecuada, simple y válida para determinar estas desarmonías. El uso de pruebas diagnósticas cefalométricas para la evaluación sagital intermaxilar en individuos en crecimiento debe considerar la naturaleza dinámica del desarrollo craneofacial. Rev. Clin. Periodoncia Implantol. Rehabil. Oral Vol. 6(2); 99-104, 2013.Palabras clave: Cefalometría, diagnóstico sagital intermaxilar, sensibilidad, especificidad. ABSTRACTSagittal intermaxillary anomalies are highly prevalent clinical entities that affect between 20% and 40% of the population. The origin of a high percentage of them relies on skeletal alterations of the jaws, which are characterized by the presence of an abnormal overjet. Their relevance becomes evident when their manifestations are severe, as they generate morphologic alterations that bring functional, aesthetic and psychological consequences both in children and adults. The quantitative evaluation of the sagital intermaxillary relationships is done preferably with cephalometry, through measurements that represent diagnostic indicators. There are numerous indices used for intermaxillary sagital classification, nevertheless, the information about their diagnostic value is limited, in terms of the sensibility and specificity associated with their use. The aim of the present narrative review is to analyze the performance of the cephalometric evaluation as a diagnostic tool for the measurement of the intermaxllary sagittal relationship in terms of sensibility and specificity. At present, no single cephalometric t...

show abstract

Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements

Cited by 30 publications

References 30 publications

Reliability of overbite depth indicator (ODI) and anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) in the assessment of different vertical and sagittal dental malocclusions: a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis

Reliability of overbite depth indicator (ODI) and anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) in the assessment of different vertical and sagittal dental malocclusions: a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis

Relationship of maxillary 3-dimensional posterior occlusal plane to mandibular spatial position and morphology

Rendimiento de la evaluación cefalométrica para el diagnóstico sagital intermaxilar: Revisión narrativa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About