Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Dinçer, Banu; Yetkiner, Enver; Aras, Isil; Attin, Thomas; Attin, Rengin (2013). Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients. Head & Face Medicine, 9:36.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

72 downloads since deposited on 13 Jan 2014
30 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2013
Deposited On:13 Jan 2014 13:55
Last Modified:21 Nov 2017 17:03
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1746-160X
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-36
PubMed ID:24304887

Download

Download PDF  'Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 246kB
View at publisher
Download PDF  'Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 287kB
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)