Cephalometric variables as predictors of Class II treatment outcome

Variáveis relevantes no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

“…Although facial pattern does not seem to exert a significant impact on the occlusal results of the treatment 16 , Simão 24 conducted a systematic study in 2006 to assess the effects of cephalometric features on the success rate of Class II treatment performed both without extractions and with the extraction of two premolars. The results showed that the cephalometric pattern of the patients did not exert significant in- it can therefore be concluded that cephalometric pattern does not constitute a reliable parameter in predicting treatment results 19,30 . In fact, from the standpoint of occlusal relationships the treatment protocol can significantly influence Class II correction results while cephalometric pattern does not yield a significant association with result quality.…”

“…When the cephalometric variables which define the facial pattern were used to predict Class II malocclusion treatment results, only 18% of treatment results variation could be explained by means of these cephalometric variables 19 . In a similar study, Zentner et al 30 concluded that the cephalometric variables which define craniofacial morphology play a negligible part in forecasting orthodontic treatment success.…”

Avaliação do tempo e do grau de eficiência do tratamento da má oclusão de classe I realizado com e sem extrações de pré-molares

“…Contudo, este é o registro de estudo que, sozinho, reúne a maior quantidade de informações relacionadas ao diagnóstico e tratamento ortodôntico (HAN, et al, 1991). Além disso, tem-se demonstrado: 1) uma pobre associação entre as características oclusais observadas em modelos de estudo e a morfologia craniofacial avaliada nas telerradiografias (KEIM, et al, 2002) e 2) uma melhor predição dos resultados do tratamento ortodôntico por meio dos índices oclusais, obtidos dos modelos de estudo pré-tratamento, do que pelas variáveis cefalométricas, medidas nas telerradiografias iniciais (KIM, et al, 2000;MCGUINNESS;MCDONALD, 1998 BIRKELAND, et al, 1997;HOLMAN, et al, 1998;JANSON, et al, 2004a; BIRKELAND, et al, 1997;RUSSELL;CLARK, 1996;DE FREITAS, et al, 2007;DEGUZMAN, et al, 1995;DYKEN;HURST, 2001;FREITAS, et al, 2008;MCGUINNESS;MCDONALD, 1998;RICHMOND, et al, 1992b). Além disso, o índice PAR proporciona uma avaliação criteriosa não apenas do grau de severidade inicial da má oclusão, mas também dos resultados e das alterações oclusais decorrentes do tratamento.…”

Can less be more in orthodontic diagnosis?

“…Despite all radiation exposure guidelines recommending against routine radiographic exposure of any kind [8][9][10][11][12], some orthodontists are advocating routinely taking cone beam computer tomographs (CBCT) on all orthodontic patients, including children, only to convert them into two dimensional cephalometric radiographs to perform traditional measurements developed over half a century ago [13][14][15][16][17]. Systematic reviews have concluded that there is no high quality evidence to support the use of CBCT in orthodontics [18,19] and cephalometric radiographs have been shown not to contribute significantly to treatment planning decisions [20][21][22]. Despite the radiation we routinely expose our patients to, we frequently plan the position of the teeth based on an unrelated view of the dental arches orientated with the occlusal plane parallel to the floor.…”