ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To determine intra- and inter-observer precision in Sella (S), Nasion (N), point A and B identification. Additionally, to determine how it can interfere with angular measurements of SNA and SNB by orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Methods: Twenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by five orthodontists and five dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Results: Differences in linear and angular measuremts were assessed. Intra- and inter-observer agreement was evaluated. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the horizontal and vertical components of the S landmark identification (ICC: 0.75/0.90). Orthodontists tended to produce larger SNA (-0.18º), while SNB angle had a tendency to be smaller (0.55º). In general, SNA angle was smaller (DMFRs: -0.308º and orthodontists: -0.092º), and SNB presented with larger values (DMFR: 0.078º and orthodontists: -0.074º). Conclusion: Identification of the Sella landmark revealed a better agreement amongst dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Orthodontists, however, showed a larger variability in S identification and, consequently, the SNA and SNB angles drifted significantly.
RESUMO Objetivo: Determinar a precisão intra e inter-observador na identificação dos pontos Sella (S), Násio (N), A e B. Também, verificar como a identificação dos pontos pode interferir nas medições angulares de SNA e SNB por ortodontistas e radiologistas odontológicos. Métodos: Vinte telerradiografias laterais digitais foram avaliadas por cinco ortodontistas e cinco radiologistas odontológicos. Diferenças de medidas lineares e angulares foram avaliadas. Resultados: Concordância intra e inter-observador foi avaliada e a reprodutibilidade intra e inter-observador dos componentes horizontais e verticais da identificação S marco (ICC: 0,75 / 0,90). Ortodontistas tenderam a produzir maior valor para SNA (-0.18º), enquanto que para o ângulo SNB houve tendência a dimininuição do valor (0.55º). Em geral, os valores obtidos para o ângulo SNA foram menores (radiologistas: -0.308º e ortodontistas: -0.092º) e SNB apresentados com valores maiores (radiologistas: -0.074º: 0.078º e ortodontistas). Concordância intra e inter-observador foi avaliada e a reprodutibilidade intra e inter-observador dos componentes horizontais e verticais da identificação S marco (ICC: 0,75 / 0,90). Ortodontistas tenderam a produzir maior valor para SNA (-0.18º), enquanto que para o ângulo SNB houve tendência a dimininuição do valor (0.55º). Em geral, os valores obtidos para o ângulo SNA foram menores (radiologistas: -0.308º e ortodontistas: -0.092º) e SNB apresentados com valores maiores (radiologistas: -0.074º: 0.078º e ortodontistas). Conclusão: A identificação do ponto Sella revelou uma melhor concordância entre os radiologistas odontológicos. Ortodontistas, no entanto, mostraram uma maior variabilidade na identificação do ponto S e, consequentemente, os ângulos SNA e SNB variaram significativamente. A identificação do ponto Sella revelou uma melhor concordância entre os radiologistas odontológicos. Ortodontistas, no entanto, mostraram uma maior variabilidade na identificação do ponto S e, consequentemente, os ângulos SNA e SNB variaram significativamente.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of additional lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients seeking orthodontic treatment, and for whom pretreatment diagnostic records were available, were randomly selected. Ten qualified orthodontists were involved in this study. The patients' records included three photographs of the angle trimmed dental casts, digital lateral cephalometric and panoramic radiographs, and standard clinical photographs comprising seven intra- and four extraoral pictures. Records were evaluated in two sessions. At the first session, orthodontists evaluated records without lateral cephalometric radiography (LCR). In the second session, the same information was presented, but with LCR. Between the two sessions the order in which the cases were presented was altered to avoid bias. RESULTS: The percentage of agreement between sessions was lower for diagnosis than for treatment planning. Concerning skeletal classification, the least experienced orthodontist was the least consistent (28%), while the more experienced orthodontist was the more reliable (67%). In terms of treatment modalities, in general there was an agreement of 64%. The most frequent modifications in treatment modalities were seen in Class II malocclusion patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that the majority of Portuguese orthodontists judge that LCR is important to producing a treatment plan. Despite that, it does not seem to have an influence on orthodontic treatment planning.
