The reliability of a modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method for estimating skeletal growth in males and females.
Cephalometric radiograph
Cervical vertebrae
Morphology
Reliability
Sex difference
Skeletal maturation
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2024
19 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
18
05
2024
accepted:
07
10
2024
medline:
20
10
2024
pubmed:
20
10
2024
entrez:
19
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reliability of the six-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method to evaluate skeletal growth was evaluated on the combined male and female samples and revealed diverse results. The current study aimed to determine the reliability of the modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method for estimating the skeletal growth of males and females. Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 137 orthodontic patients were utilized to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer reliability of a modified cervical vertebrae maturation method. Four independent examiners categorized each radiograph into one of the three skeletal growth stages according to the cervical vertebrae morphology: (1) a pre-peak group (combining the CS1 and CS2 stages), (2) a peak group (combining the CS3 and CS4 stages), and (3) a post-peak group (combining the CS5 and CS6 stages). The Kappa index and the Fleiss multirater Kappa test were carried out to determine the reproducibility of this method. The studied sample included cephalometric radiographs of 68 males (49.6%) and 69 females (50.4%) aged between 7 and 58 years; no significant age difference was found between the sexes (p = 0.189). The overall inter-observer reliability was 0.689 (p < 0.001), and the inter-observer reliability for the post-peak stage showed only Kappa = 0.896 (p < 0.001). The Kappa values were significantly greater in males than in females during the peak stage (0.626 and 0.488, respectively). A modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method showed substantial overall inter-examiner agreement; however, differential reliability for diverse skeletal maturation stages and sexes was found.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reliability of the six-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method to evaluate skeletal growth was evaluated on the combined male and female samples and revealed diverse results. The current study aimed to determine the reliability of the modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method for estimating the skeletal growth of males and females.
METHODS
METHODS
Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 137 orthodontic patients were utilized to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer reliability of a modified cervical vertebrae maturation method. Four independent examiners categorized each radiograph into one of the three skeletal growth stages according to the cervical vertebrae morphology: (1) a pre-peak group (combining the CS1 and CS2 stages), (2) a peak group (combining the CS3 and CS4 stages), and (3) a post-peak group (combining the CS5 and CS6 stages). The Kappa index and the Fleiss multirater Kappa test were carried out to determine the reproducibility of this method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The studied sample included cephalometric radiographs of 68 males (49.6%) and 69 females (50.4%) aged between 7 and 58 years; no significant age difference was found between the sexes (p = 0.189). The overall inter-observer reliability was 0.689 (p < 0.001), and the inter-observer reliability for the post-peak stage showed only Kappa = 0.896 (p < 0.001). The Kappa values were significantly greater in males than in females during the peak stage (0.626 and 0.488, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method showed substantial overall inter-examiner agreement; however, differential reliability for diverse skeletal maturation stages and sexes was found.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39427145
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05028-5
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-05028-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1255Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:119–29.
doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.005
Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:316–23.
pubmed: 12169031
Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, Ghiozzi B, Cozza P. The diagnostic performance of chronologic age in the assessment of skeletal maturity. Prog Orthod. 2006;7:176–88.
pubmed: 17143345
Bittencourt MV, Cericato G, Franco A, Girão R, Lima APB, Paranhos L. Accuracy of dental development for estimating the pubertal growth spurt in comparison to skeletal development: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47:20170362.
pubmed: 29241366
pmcid: 5991758
Fishman LS. Chronological versus skeletal age, an evaluation of craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod. 1979;49:181–9.
pubmed: 225970
Creo AL, Schwenk WF 2. Bone age: a handy Tool for Pediatric Providers. Pediatrics. 2017;140:e20171486.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1486
pubmed: 29141916
Montasser MA, Viana G, Evans CA. Racial and sex differences in timing of the cervical vertebrae maturation stages. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151:744–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.019
Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;107:58–66.
doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70157-5
Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Major PW. Use of skeletal maturation based on hand-wrist radiographic analysis as a predictor of facial growth: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:118–24.
pubmed: 15038500
Chang HP, Liao CH, Yang YH, Chang HF, Chen KC. Correlation of cervical vertebra maturation with hand-wrist maturation in children. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2001;17:29–35.
pubmed: 11411257
Smith RJ. Misuse of hand-wrist radiographs. Am J Orthod. 1980;77:75–8.
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90225-0
pubmed: 6928086
Lamparski DG. Skeletal age assessment utilizing cervical vertebrae. Master of Science Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1972.
O’Reilly MT, Yanniello GJ. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae-a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 1988;58:179–84.
pubmed: 3164596
Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Biren S, Arun T. Comparisons between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999;24:47–52.
pubmed: 10709543
Prasad M, Ganji VS, George SA, Talapaneni AK, Shetty SK. A comparison between cervical vertebrae and modified MP3 stages for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2013;4:74–80.
doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.107264
pubmed: 23633839
pmcid: 3633307
Szemraj A, Wojtaszek-Słomińska A, Racka-Pilszak B. Is the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method effective enough to replace the hand-wrist maturation (HWM) method in determining skeletal maturation?-A systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2018;102:125–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.03.012
pubmed: 29685525
García-Fernandez P, Torre H, Flores L, Rea J. The cervical vertebrae as maturational indicators. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32:221–5.
pubmed: 9709621
Perinetti G, Caprioglio A, Contardo L. Visual assessment of the cervical vertebral maturation stages: a study of diagnostic accuracy and repeatability. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:951–6.
doi: 10.2319/120913-906.1
pubmed: 24665865
pmcid: 8638509
Rainey BJ, Burnside G, Harrison JE. Reliability of cervical vertebral maturation staging. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150:98–104.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.013
Gabriel DB, Southard KA, Qian F, Marshall SD, Franciscus RG, Southard TE. Cervical vertebrae maturation method: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136:e4781–7. discussion 478 – 80.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.028
Nestman TS, Marshall SD, Qian F, Holton N, Franciscus RG, Southard TE. Cervical vertebrae maturation method morphologic criteria: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:182–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.04.013
Zhao XG, Lin J, Jiang JH, Wang Q, Ng SH. Validity and reliability of a method for assessment of cervical vertebral maturation. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:229–34.
doi: 10.2319/051511-333.1
pubmed: 21875315
McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. The cervical vertebral maturation method: a user’s guide. Angle Orthod. 2018;88:133–43.
doi: 10.2319/111517-787.1
pubmed: 29337631
pmcid: 8312535
Sohrabi A, Babay Ahari S, Moslemzadeh H, Rafighi A, Aghazadeh Z. The reliability of clinical decisions based on the cervical vertebrae maturation staging method. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:8–12.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv030
pubmed: 25925767
Pileski RC, Woodside DG, James GA. Relationship of the ulnar sesamoid bone and maximum mandibular growth velocity. Angle Orthod. 1973;43:162–70.
pubmed: 4511994
Caldas Mde P, Ambrosano GM, Haiter-Neto F. Use of cervical vertebral dimensions for assessment of children growth. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:144–7.
doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572007000200014
pubmed: 19089119
Kulkarni NB, Dave BH. Morphometric Assessment of Third and Fourth Cervical Vertebra based on Hassel and Farman Method: a Radiographic Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22:1457–61.
pubmed: 35656687
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
doi: 10.2307/2529310
pubmed: 843571
Soegiharto BM, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Discriminatory ability of the skeletal maturation index and the cervical vertebrae maturation index in detecting peak pubertal growth in Indonesian and white subjects with receiver operating characteristics analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134:227–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.062
Lai EH, Liu JP, Chang JZ, Tsai SJ, Yao CC, Chen MH, Chen YJ, Lin CP. Radiographic assessment of skeletal maturation stages for orthodontic patients: hand-wrist bones or cervical vertebrae? J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107:316–25.
doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60093-5
pubmed: 18445546
Santiago RC, de Miranda Costa LF, Vitral RW, Fraga MR, Bolognese AM, Maia LC. Cervical vertebral maturation as a biologic indicator of skeletal maturity. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1123–31.
doi: 10.2319/103111-673.1
pubmed: 22417653
pmcid: 8813133
Shim JJ, Heo G, Lagravère MO. Assessment of skeletal maturation based on cervical vertebrae in CBCT. Int Orthod. 2012;10:351–62.
pubmed: 23122737
da Rocha Duque PH, Santiago RC, dos Santos RL, de Faria FR, de Sá Werneck C, Vitral RWF, da Silva Campos MJ. Comparison of the reproducibility of two cervical vertebrae maturation methods. Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21:e226415.
doi: 10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8666415
Miller CA, Hwang SJ, Cotter MM, Vorperian HK. Cervical vertebral body growth and emergence of sexual dimorphism: a developmental study using computed tomography. J Anat. 2019;234:764–77.
doi: 10.1111/joa.12976
pubmed: 30945292
pmcid: 6534438
Chandrasekar R, Chandrasekhar S, Sundari KKS, Ravi P. Development and validation of a formula for objective assessment of cervical vertebral bone age. Prog Orthod. 2020;21:38.
doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00338-0
pubmed: 33043408
pmcid: 7548270
Miller CA, Hwang SJ, Cotter MM, Vorperian HK. Developmental morphology of the cervical vertebrae and the emergence of sexual dimorphism in size and shape: a computed tomography study. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2021;304:1692–708.
doi: 10.1002/ar.24559
pubmed: 33119940
Kim DW, Kim J, Kim T, Kim T, Kim YJ, Song IS, Ahn B, Choo J, Lee DY. Prediction of hand-wrist maturation stages based on cervical vertebrae images using artificial intelligence. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(Suppl 2):68–75.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12514
pubmed: 34405944
Nieves JW, Formica C, Ruffing J, Zion M, Garrett P, Lindsay R, Cosman F. Males have larger skeletal size and bone mass than females, despite comparable body size. J Bone Min Res. 2005;20:529–35.
doi: 10.1359/JBMR.041005
Gilsanz V, Kovanlikaya A, Costin G, Roe TF, Sayre J, Kaufman F. Differential effect of gender on the sizes of the bones in the axial and appendicular skeletons. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1997;82:1603–7.
pubmed: 9141557
Seeman E. Periosteal bone formation-a neglected determinant of bone strength. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:320–3.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp038101
pubmed: 12878736
Rogol AD, Roemmich JN, Clark PA. Growth at puberty. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31:192–200.
doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00485-8
pubmed: 12470915