Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(01): 116-120
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175694
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Determination of vertical characteristics with different cephalometric measurements

Eduardo de Novaes Benedicto
1   Private Office, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brazil
,
Silvana Allegrini Kairalla
2   Private Office, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Gustavo Mussi Stefan Oliveira
3   Department of General Dentistry and Oral Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
,
Laerte Ribeiro Menezes Junior
4   Private Office, Lagarto, SE, Brazil
,
Henrique Damian Rosário
5   Department of Orthodontics, FUNORTE, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
,
Luiz Renato Paranhos
6   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Lagarto, SE, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze a possible correlation between different measures in the definition of vertical facial types. Materials and Methods: This is an analytical observational study about 95 lateral teleradiographs of Caucasian individuals with normal occlusion, of which 54 were male (56.84%) and 41 female (43.16%), aged between 15 years and 2 months old and 21 years and 4 months old. Facial types were divided into dolichofacial, mesofacial, and brachyfacial, according to the standards established by different authors. A relationship between these measurements was verified using total agreement analysis and the Kappa method, with the interpretation suggested by Landis and Koch. Results: Kappa was considered fair for Jarabak X VERT (0.22 and 60%) and slight for Jarabak X SN.GoGn (0.06 and 36.8%). Conclusions: Cephalometric studies often present different interpretations on the description of vertical facial types. In this study, the lowest agreement was between Jarabak and SN.GoGn. Such difference in interpretation may lead to distinct therapeutic approaches and thus different results.

Key words:

Cephalometry - diagnosis - face
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Ricketts RM, Roth RH, Chaconas SJ, Schulhof RJ, Engel GA. Bioprogressive technique of Ricketts. Buenos Aires: Panamericana; 1983
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Siriwat PP, Jarabak JR. Malocclusion and facial morphology is there a relationship?. An epidemiologic study. Angle Orthod 1985; 55: 127-38
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Scanavini C, Vigorito JW. Cephalometric-radiographic study of the possible correlations existent between Vigorito, Ricketts e Siriwat and Jarabak analysis on facial patterns determination. Ortodontia 2001; 34: 27-41
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Moresca R, Reis SA, Vigorito JW, Scanavini MA. A comparative cephalometric-radiographic study of facial patterns in class II, angle 1 malocclusion, using Ricketts and Siriwat and Jarabak caphalometric analysis. J Bras Ortod Ortop Facial 2002; 7: 520-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Yamaguto OT, Urbano AL, Vasconcelos MH. The correlation between the methods applied to establish the facial type preconized by Ricketts and by Siriwat; Jarabak. Odonro (São Bernardo do Campo) 2004; 23: 100-13
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 296-309
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal oclusion. Angle Orthod 1952; 22: 142-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 382-90
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1973
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Washington: Biometrics; 1977
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Oz AZ, Akcan CA, El H, Ciger S. Evaluation of the soft tissue treatment simulation module of a computerized cephalometric program. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 229-33
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Marchiori GE, Sodré LO, da Cunha TC, Torres FC, Rosário HD, Paranhos LR. Pleasantness of facial profile and its correlation with soft tissue cephalometric parameters: Perception of orthodontists and lay people. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 352-5
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Coben SE. The integration of facial skeletal variants. Am J Orthod 1955; 41: 407-34
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Broadbent BH. The face of the normal child. Angle Orthod 1937; 7: 183-208
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 da Silva FilhoOG, Lara TS. Radiographic cephalometry. Pro-Odonto. Ortodontia 2009; 2: 9-76
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Saito CH. Comparison of some cephalometric measures from the analysis of Ricketts (VERT index) and Jarabak (Jarabak Quotient) in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated with orthodontics and functional orthopedics maxillary functional. Rev Straight Wire 1995; 7: 7-20
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 330-57
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Björk A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 339-83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Christie TE. Cephalometric patterns of adults with normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1977; 47: 128-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Santos CD, Ghershel H. Pattern of the facial types: (Brachy, Meso and Dolicho). RGO (Porto Alegre) 2001; 6: 24-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Poubel D, Urbano AL, Maltagliati LA, Scanavini MA. The relationship between the topology facial and pubescent grown spurt. RGO (Porto Alegre) 2003; 7: 7-12
    Search in Google Scholar