Cargando…

Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients

BACKGROUND: Radiographic examination is considered ‘justified’ only when detection of a condition that would change the mechanisms and timing of treatment is possible. Radiographic safety guidelines have restricted the indication of lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) to presence of distinct sk...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dinçer, Banu, Yetkiner, Enver, Aras, Isil, Attin, Thomas, Attin, Rengin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3932141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24304887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-36
_version_ 1782304753514971136
author Dinçer, Banu
Yetkiner, Enver
Aras, Isil
Attin, Thomas
Attin, Rengin
author_facet Dinçer, Banu
Yetkiner, Enver
Aras, Isil
Attin, Thomas
Attin, Rengin
author_sort Dinçer, Banu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Radiographic examination is considered ‘justified’ only when detection of a condition that would change the mechanisms and timing of treatment is possible. Radiographic safety guidelines have restricted the indication of lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) to presence of distinct skeletal Class II or Class III. However, they are taken routinely in clinical practice and considered to be part of the ‘gold’ standard for orthodontic diagnosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that lateral cephalometric radiograph (LCR) evaluation would not alter the extraction/non-extraction decision in orthodontic treatment planning of skeletal Class I patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intraoral and extraoral photographs, dental casts and extraoral radiographs of 60 skeletal Class I patients were prepared digitally for assessment using a presentation software. One experienced (EO) and inexperienced orthodontist (IO) was asked to decide on extraction or non-extraction on a Likert-type linear scale for treatment planning. This procedure was repeated 4 weeks later with a mixed order of patients and the LCRs being omitted. Kappa, Weighted Kappa (WK) and McNemar scores were computed to test decision consistency and Bland-Altman plots together with 95% limits of agreement were used to determine measurement accuracy and presence of systematic bias. RESULTS: Both EO (WK = 0.67) and IO (WK = 0.64) had good level of decision agreement with and without LCR evaluation. EO did not present a shift towards extraction nor non-extraction with LCR evaluation (McNemar = 0.999) whereas IO showed a tendency to extraction (McNemar = 0.07) with LCR data. Including LCR evaluation created a systematic inconsistency between EO and IO (Line of equality = 0.8, Confidence interval = 0.307-0.707). CONCLUSIONS: Lateral cephalometric radiograph evaluation did not influence the extraction decision in treatment planning of skeletal Class I patients. Reconsidering the necessity of lateral cephalograms in orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class I patients may reduce the amount of ionizing radiation. Key words: Lateral cephalometric radiograph, extraction, treatment planning, skeletal Class I.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3932141
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39321412014-02-23 Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients Dinçer, Banu Yetkiner, Enver Aras, Isil Attin, Thomas Attin, Rengin Head Face Med Research BACKGROUND: Radiographic examination is considered ‘justified’ only when detection of a condition that would change the mechanisms and timing of treatment is possible. Radiographic safety guidelines have restricted the indication of lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) to presence of distinct skeletal Class II or Class III. However, they are taken routinely in clinical practice and considered to be part of the ‘gold’ standard for orthodontic diagnosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that lateral cephalometric radiograph (LCR) evaluation would not alter the extraction/non-extraction decision in orthodontic treatment planning of skeletal Class I patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intraoral and extraoral photographs, dental casts and extraoral radiographs of 60 skeletal Class I patients were prepared digitally for assessment using a presentation software. One experienced (EO) and inexperienced orthodontist (IO) was asked to decide on extraction or non-extraction on a Likert-type linear scale for treatment planning. This procedure was repeated 4 weeks later with a mixed order of patients and the LCRs being omitted. Kappa, Weighted Kappa (WK) and McNemar scores were computed to test decision consistency and Bland-Altman plots together with 95% limits of agreement were used to determine measurement accuracy and presence of systematic bias. RESULTS: Both EO (WK = 0.67) and IO (WK = 0.64) had good level of decision agreement with and without LCR evaluation. EO did not present a shift towards extraction nor non-extraction with LCR evaluation (McNemar = 0.999) whereas IO showed a tendency to extraction (McNemar = 0.07) with LCR data. Including LCR evaluation created a systematic inconsistency between EO and IO (Line of equality = 0.8, Confidence interval = 0.307-0.707). CONCLUSIONS: Lateral cephalometric radiograph evaluation did not influence the extraction decision in treatment planning of skeletal Class I patients. Reconsidering the necessity of lateral cephalograms in orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class I patients may reduce the amount of ionizing radiation. Key words: Lateral cephalometric radiograph, extraction, treatment planning, skeletal Class I. BioMed Central 2013-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3932141/ /pubmed/24304887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-36 Text en Copyright © 2013 Dinçer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Dinçer, Banu
Yetkiner, Enver
Aras, Isil
Attin, Thomas
Attin, Rengin
Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title_full Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title_fullStr Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title_full_unstemmed Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title_short Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients
title_sort influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class i patients
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3932141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24304887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-36
work_keys_str_mv AT dincerbanu influenceoflateralcephalometricradiographsonextractiondecisioninskeletalclassipatients
AT yetkinerenver influenceoflateralcephalometricradiographsonextractiondecisioninskeletalclassipatients
AT arasisil influenceoflateralcephalometricradiographsonextractiondecisioninskeletalclassipatients
AT attinthomas influenceoflateralcephalometricradiographsonextractiondecisioninskeletalclassipatients
AT attinrengin influenceoflateralcephalometricradiographsonextractiondecisioninskeletalclassipatients