Accuracy of Two Cephalometric Analyses in the Treatment of Patients with Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment plan outlined from the diagnosis obtained by two different cephalometric analyses with the clinical decision made for surgical treatment of patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. For this purpose, 82 skeletal Class III patients were evaluated, divided into three groups according to the surgical procedure performed for dentofacial deformity correction. Their preoperative cephalometric radiographs were submitted to McNamara and Steiner cephalometric analyses. The association of variables was evaluated by Kappa correlation (α=5%). The agreement between indication of surgical procedures performed based on clinical decision and surgical treatment indicated based on the evaluation of McNamara and Steiner cephalometric analyses were not significant (p=0.609 and p=0.544, respectively). McNamara and Steiner analyses showed reasonable agreement with each other as to the diagnosis, but did not agree with the clinical decision to treat skeletal CIII patients. Both tests were equally inaccurate in the indication of the surgical treatment.

Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model for Surgical Success of Maxillomandibular Advancement for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

“…For intra-observer reliability analyses, the observer repeated the measurements one month later in twenty cases that were randomly selected. In the present study, the following cephalometric data at baseline was obtained as the potential predictors: anterior lower face height, anterior total face height, presence of maxillomandibular deficiency (maxillomandibular deficiency was defined as sella-naison-A-point (SNA) angle ≤ 80.5° and/or sella-naison-B-point (SNB) angle ≤ 78.5°) [ 30 ], and superior posterior airway space (SPAS). An overview on the cephalometric variables and definitions is illustrated in Table 1 .…”

Effects of maxillomandibular advancement on respiratory function and facial aesthetics in obstructive sleep apnoea patients with versus without maxillomandibular deficiency

“…All of the patients were classified into one of two groups, based on the maxillofacial skeletal criteria of the Steiner analysis 19 : those without maxillomandibular deficiency (without-deficiency group), i.e. patients with sella-nasion-A-point angle (SNA) > 80.5° and sella-nasion-B-point angle (SNB) > 78.5°; those with maxillomandibular deficiency (with-deficiency group), i.e.…”