Cargando…

Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of photographic measurements and compare it with its analogous cephalometric variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalograms and standardized facial profile photographs were obtained from a sample of 120 subjects (92 females, 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupta, Shraddha, Tandon, Pradeep, Singh, Gyan P., Shastri, Dipti
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326206/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35911811
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/njms.NJMS_267_20
_version_ 1784757230367670272
author Gupta, Shraddha
Tandon, Pradeep
Singh, Gyan P.
Shastri, Dipti
author_facet Gupta, Shraddha
Tandon, Pradeep
Singh, Gyan P.
Shastri, Dipti
author_sort Gupta, Shraddha
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of photographic measurements and compare it with its analogous cephalometric variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalograms and standardized facial profile photographs were obtained from a sample of 120 subjects (92 females, 28 males; age 12–22 years with mean age of 17.5 years). A total of 4 linear and 7 angular measurements along with 3 ratios analogous to one another were measured on both. Descriptive statistics for all measurements were computed. Pearson's correlation coefficients were computed between analogous measurements, and regression analysis was done for each variable measured on the photograph to accurately predict the cephalometric variable. RESULTS: The reliability of the standardized photographic technique was satisfactory. Most photographic measurements showed highly significant correlations (P < 0.001) with cephalometric variables. Among all measurements used, the A'N'B' angle was the most effective in explaining the variability of its analogous cephalometric (r(2)= 0.35). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle' angle showed best results for vertical assessment (r(2)= 0.81) along with anterior face height (AFH) and lower anterior facial height (r(2)= 0.859) and ratio lower posterior facial height/AFH (r(2)= 0.702). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot rule out lateral cephalogram as the primary record in orthodontics, photographic assessment can always be used through proper standardization, as an alternative diagnostic aid, and also for large-scale epidemiological purposes and places with unavailability of cephalostat.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9326206
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93262062022-07-28 Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables Gupta, Shraddha Tandon, Pradeep Singh, Gyan P. Shastri, Dipti Natl J Maxillofac Surg Original Article OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of photographic measurements and compare it with its analogous cephalometric variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalograms and standardized facial profile photographs were obtained from a sample of 120 subjects (92 females, 28 males; age 12–22 years with mean age of 17.5 years). A total of 4 linear and 7 angular measurements along with 3 ratios analogous to one another were measured on both. Descriptive statistics for all measurements were computed. Pearson's correlation coefficients were computed between analogous measurements, and regression analysis was done for each variable measured on the photograph to accurately predict the cephalometric variable. RESULTS: The reliability of the standardized photographic technique was satisfactory. Most photographic measurements showed highly significant correlations (P < 0.001) with cephalometric variables. Among all measurements used, the A'N'B' angle was the most effective in explaining the variability of its analogous cephalometric (r(2)= 0.35). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle' angle showed best results for vertical assessment (r(2)= 0.81) along with anterior face height (AFH) and lower anterior facial height (r(2)= 0.859) and ratio lower posterior facial height/AFH (r(2)= 0.702). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot rule out lateral cephalogram as the primary record in orthodontics, photographic assessment can always be used through proper standardization, as an alternative diagnostic aid, and also for large-scale epidemiological purposes and places with unavailability of cephalostat. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2022 2022-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9326206/ /pubmed/35911811 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/njms.NJMS_267_20 Text en Copyright: © 2022 National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gupta, Shraddha
Tandon, Pradeep
Singh, Gyan P.
Shastri, Dipti
Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title_full Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title_fullStr Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title_full_unstemmed Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title_short Comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
title_sort comparative assessment of cephalometric with its analogous photographic variables
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326206/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35911811
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/njms.NJMS_267_20
work_keys_str_mv AT guptashraddha comparativeassessmentofcephalometricwithitsanalogousphotographicvariables
AT tandonpradeep comparativeassessmentofcephalometricwithitsanalogousphotographicvariables
AT singhgyanp comparativeassessmentofcephalometricwithitsanalogousphotographicvariables
AT shastridipti comparativeassessmentofcephalometricwithitsanalogousphotographicvariables