Comparison of Diagnostic Validity of Cephalometric Analyses of the ANB Angle and Tau Angle for Assessment of the Sagittal Relationship of Jaw and Mandible.
cephalometric analyses
diagnosis
orthodontics
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2023
02 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
11
09
2023
revised:
27
09
2023
accepted:
28
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and repeatability of new cephalometric points introduced in Tau angle analysis, in contrast to the gold standard, which is the analysis of the ANB angle. For this purpose, an attempt was made to assess the repeatability and reliability of the introduction of anthropometric points by evaluating both inter- and intraobserver parameters, as well as the agreement among the orthodontists participating in the study. Repeatability and reliability assessments for all six anthropometric points (N, A, B, T, M, G) used in the analysis of the ANB and Tau angles were conducted individually by 29 orthodontists. This assessment was performed in triplicate on the day of the study, on the day following the first study, and on the seventh day after the second study. Measurement errors for the ANB and Tau angles were evaluated using the Dahlberg formula and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The orthodontists in the study measured sagittal discrepancy significantly more accurately using the ANB angle compared to the Tau angle ( The results of ANB angle measurements exhibit fewer errors in comparison to Tau angle measurements.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and repeatability of new cephalometric points introduced in Tau angle analysis, in contrast to the gold standard, which is the analysis of the ANB angle. For this purpose, an attempt was made to assess the repeatability and reliability of the introduction of anthropometric points by evaluating both inter- and intraobserver parameters, as well as the agreement among the orthodontists participating in the study.
METHODS
METHODS
Repeatability and reliability assessments for all six anthropometric points (N, A, B, T, M, G) used in the analysis of the ANB and Tau angles were conducted individually by 29 orthodontists. This assessment was performed in triplicate on the day of the study, on the day following the first study, and on the seventh day after the second study. Measurement errors for the ANB and Tau angles were evaluated using the Dahlberg formula and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The orthodontists in the study measured sagittal discrepancy significantly more accurately using the ANB angle compared to the Tau angle (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results of ANB angle measurements exhibit fewer errors in comparison to Tau angle measurements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37834977
pii: jcm12196333
doi: 10.3390/jcm12196333
pmc: PMC10573306
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2022 Dec;23(4):275-280
pubmed: 36511914
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 16;18(6):
pubmed: 33809695
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020 Sep-Oct;13(5):497-500
pubmed: 33623336
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Jun 1;19(6):739-742
pubmed: 29959305
Br J Orthod. 1981 Jul;8(3):139-46
pubmed: 7020748
Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2015 Oct-Dec;119(4):1153-60
pubmed: 26793863
Dental Press J Orthod. 2018 Sep-Oct;23(5):75-81
pubmed: 30427496
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007 Feb;10(1):36-44
pubmed: 17284245
Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec;45(4):213-20
pubmed: 26730368
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):66-70
pubmed: 21303811
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Jan;41(1):11-7
pubmed: 22184624
J Pers Med. 2022 Mar 03;12(3):
pubmed: 35330386
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jul 15;12(7):
pubmed: 35885628
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Dec;24 Suppl 2:100-107
pubmed: 34553817
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 14;18(10):
pubmed: 34069290
J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 22;11(8):
pubmed: 34442336
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Dec 07;11(12):
pubmed: 34943528
Gen Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr;64(2):52-5
pubmed: 26943089
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Feb;99(2):122-8
pubmed: 1990821
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Jul;126(1):100-5
pubmed: 15224065
World J Orthod. 2009 Summer;10(2):147-51
pubmed: 19582259
Ann Anat. 2006 May;188(3):261-6
pubmed: 16711165
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 22;18(9):
pubmed: 33922272
Eur J Orthod. 2002 Dec;24(6):655-65
pubmed: 12512783
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 15;10(22):
pubmed: 34830583