Objective: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic concordance between skeletal cephalometrics and soft-tissue cephalometrics in identifying facial lower third characteristics. Materials and methods: We compared a skeletal cephalometric analysis (SCA) to a soft-tissue analysis performed on cephalometric radiographs (rSTCA) and to one performed on profile photograph (pSTCA). Ninety-six pre-treatment digital lateral cephalometric radiographs and 96 digital profile photographs were randomly selected for this study (patients' mean age: 18.33, SD: 3.38, age range: 14-29). Inclusion criteria were as follows: no skeletal asymmetry, well-aligned upper and lower dental arches, no history of orthodontic treatment, prosthodontic treatment, facial surgery and trauma, patient's age between 14 and 30 years, high-resolution images, exams taken with natural head position. Kruskas-Wallis and post hoc pairwise comparisons tests were used to find differences among the considered cephalometric methods. The diagnostic performance of the three methods was also assessed using the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Significant differences were found between SCA and rSTCA and between SCA and pSTCA in defining sagittal and vertical facial lower third characteristics (P < 0.05). No differences were found between rSTCA and pSTCA (P > 0.05) for the same facial characteristics. For each parameters investigated, pSTCA showed an area under the curve much closer to the perfect value of 1.00. Conclusion: Poor diagnostic concordance was found between SCA and rSTCA and between SCA and pSTCA. pSTCA is a reliable method for evaluating the soft-tissue profile characteristics compared to that performed on cephalograms.

Diagnostic concordance between skeletal cephalometrics, radiograph-based soft-tissue cephalometrics, and photograph-based soft-tissue cephalometrics

Lo Giudice A.
Secondo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2017

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic concordance between skeletal cephalometrics and soft-tissue cephalometrics in identifying facial lower third characteristics. Materials and methods: We compared a skeletal cephalometric analysis (SCA) to a soft-tissue analysis performed on cephalometric radiographs (rSTCA) and to one performed on profile photograph (pSTCA). Ninety-six pre-treatment digital lateral cephalometric radiographs and 96 digital profile photographs were randomly selected for this study (patients' mean age: 18.33, SD: 3.38, age range: 14-29). Inclusion criteria were as follows: no skeletal asymmetry, well-aligned upper and lower dental arches, no history of orthodontic treatment, prosthodontic treatment, facial surgery and trauma, patient's age between 14 and 30 years, high-resolution images, exams taken with natural head position. Kruskas-Wallis and post hoc pairwise comparisons tests were used to find differences among the considered cephalometric methods. The diagnostic performance of the three methods was also assessed using the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Significant differences were found between SCA and rSTCA and between SCA and pSTCA in defining sagittal and vertical facial lower third characteristics (P < 0.05). No differences were found between rSTCA and pSTCA (P > 0.05) for the same facial characteristics. For each parameters investigated, pSTCA showed an area under the curve much closer to the perfect value of 1.00. Conclusion: Poor diagnostic concordance was found between SCA and rSTCA and between SCA and pSTCA. pSTCA is a reliable method for evaluating the soft-tissue profile characteristics compared to that performed on cephalograms.
Cephalometry
Connective Tissue
Dental Arch
Face
Facial Bones
Female
Humans
Male
Mandible
Maxilla
Photography
Young Adult
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/541279
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact