Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire's craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis.
Cephalometry
Cleft lip and palate
Cluster analysis
Correlation analysis
Delaire analysis
Factor analysis
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
05
02
2021
accepted:
20
05
2021
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
29
1
2022
entrez:
29
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire's whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34050425
doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3
pii: 10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3
pmc: PMC8791903
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
353-364Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Bishara SE (2002) Facial and dental relationships in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin 14:411–424
doi: 10.1016/S1042-3699(02)00043-2
Jung D, Schwarze C, Tsutsumi S (1984) Profil-und skelettale Analyse - ein Vergleich verschiedener Auswertungsverfahren. Fortschritte Kieferorthopädie 45:304–323
doi: 10.1007/BF02169064
Han MD, Momin MR, Munaretto AM, Hao S (2019) Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis of the maxilla: Analysis of new landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 156:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.018
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.018
pubmed: 31474263
Lippold C, Danesh G, Meyer U et al (2005) Potential and limitations of cephalometric analysis of maxillofacial bone movement in the case of LeFort III-distraction. J Orofac Orthop Fortschritte Kieferorthopädie 66:388–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-0510-8
doi: 10.1007/s00056-0510-8
Brevi B, Blasio AD, Blasio CD et al (2015) Which cephalometric analysis for maxillo-mandibular surgery in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:332–337. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-415
doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-415
pubmed: 26824915
pmcid: 4720930
Bardet I, Goudot P, Kerbrat J-B, Mauchamp O (2019) Surgery First : détermination des objectifs squelettiques à partir des analyses structurales. Comparaison des analyses de Delaire et de Sassouni. Orthod Fr 90:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2019004
doi: 10.1051/orthodfr/2019004
pubmed: 30994448
Rasmussen CM, Meyer PJ, Volz JE et al (2020) Facial versus skeletal landmarks for anterior-posterior diagnosis in orthognathic surgery and orthodontics: are they the same? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 78:287.e1-287.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.10.007
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.10.007
Coppotelli E, Incisivo V, Vernucci RA et al (2019) Orthodontic-orthopedic-surgical treatment of syndromic third class: proposal of a new craniofacial cephalometric method. J Craniofac Surg 30:1170–1173. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005253
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005253
pubmed: 30817519
Ross RB (1987) Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1: treatment affecting growth. Cleft Palate J 24:5–23
pubmed: 3542303
Markus A, Delaire J, Smith W (1992) Facial balance in cleft lip and palate. II. Cleft lip and palate and secondary deformities. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30:296–304
doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(92)90179-M
Delaire J, Schendel SA, Tulasne J-F (1981) An architectural and structural craniofacial analysis: a new lateral cephalometric analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 52:226–238
doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(81)90252-8
Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA (2005) The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 11:119–129
doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.005
Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’t Hof MA et al (2002) The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod 24:655–665
doi: 10.1093/ejo/24.6.655
Hasund A (1974) Klinische Kephalometrie fur die Bergen-Technik, 1st edn. University of Bergen, Bergen
Delaire J, Salagnac J-M, Notari J (1994) Diagnostic des dysmorphoses dento-maxillo-faciales. Apport de l’analyse architecturale informatisée. Actual Odontostomatol Encycl Prat 477–511
Draper D (1995) Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:45–70
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York
doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 70:129–131
doi: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Kyriazos TA (2018) Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology 09:2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.98126
R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing
Revelle W (2018) psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research
Szklo M, Nieto JF (2014) Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett Learning, Burlington
Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics Notes: measurement error proportional to the mean. BJM 313:106
doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7049.106
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations — uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Vezina JP, Blumen M, Buchet I, Chabolle F (2012) Sleep-disordered breathing: choosing the right cephalometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:1442–1448
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.03.042
Walker GF, Kowalski CJ, Arbor A (1973) On the use of the SNA and SNB angles in cephalometric analyses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 64:517–523
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(73)90265-0
Wepner F, Hollmann K (1975) Mid-face anthropometry on the cephalometric radiograph in cleft lip and palate cases. J Maxillofac Surg 3:188–197
doi: 10.1016/S0301-0503(75)80042-7
Precious DS, Delaire J (1993) Clinical observations of cleft lip and palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 75:141–151
doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(93)90084-H
Lee CTH, Grayson BH, Brecht LE, Lin WY (2004) Prepubertal midface growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate following alveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Carniofac J 41:375–380. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-037.1
doi: 10.1597/03-037.1
Adcock S, Markus AF (1997) Mid-facial growth following functional cleft surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 35:1–5
doi: 10.1016/S0266-4356(97)90001-2
Solow B (1966) The Pattern of Craniofacial Associations. A morphological and methodological correlation and factor analysis study on young male adults. Acta Odontol Scand 24:123–135
John W, Kerr S, Adams CP (1988) Cranial base and jaw relationship. Am J Phys Anthropol 77:213–220
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330770209
Segerath C (2002) Reproduzierbarkeit von Referenzpunkten der Delaireanalyse an mittels digitaler Lumineszenzradiographie bei ausschließlich fazialer Einblendung erstellten Fernröntgenseitenaufnahmen.
Stamm T, Meier N, Hohoff A et al (2003) Are collimated low-dose digital radiographs valid for performing Delaire’s architectural analysis? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32:600–605
doi: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0437
Debelmas A, Ketoff S, Lanciaux S et al (2019) Reproducibility assessment of Delaire cephalometric analysis using reconstructions from computed tomography. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 121:35–39
doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.04.008
Lee SH, Kil TJ, Park KR et al (2014) Three-dimensional architectural and structural analysis — a transition in concept and design from Delaire’s cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:1154–1160
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.012
Järvinen S (1987) Evaluation of the Bergen cephalometric norms: a radiological and statistical appraisal. Br J Orthod 14:95–100
doi: 10.1179/bjo.14.2.95
Segner D (1989) Floating norms as a means to describe individual skeletal patterns. Eur J Orthod 11:214–220
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035988
Harrell FE Jr (2015) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7