The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography

Aim: To assess the validity of using Jugale (J) and Antegonion (Ag) on Posterior-Anterior cephalograms (PAC) as landmarks for transverse intermaxillary analysis when compared with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: Conventional PAC and CBCT images were taken of 28 dry skulls...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cheung, G., Goonewardene, M., Islam, Shams, Murray, K., Koong, B.
Format: Journal Article
Published: Australian Society of Orthodontics 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/32648
_version_ 1848753721126682624
author Cheung, G.
Goonewardene, M.
Islam, Shams
Murray, K.
Koong, B.
author_facet Cheung, G.
Goonewardene, M.
Islam, Shams
Murray, K.
Koong, B.
author_sort Cheung, G.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Aim: To assess the validity of using Jugale (J) and Antegonion (Ag) on Posterior-Anterior cephalograms (PAC) as landmarks for transverse intermaxillary analysis when compared with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: Conventional PAC and CBCT images were taken of 28 dry skulls. Craniometric measurements between the bilateral landmarks, Antegonion and Jugale, were obtained from the skulls using a microscribe and recorded as the base standard. The corresponding landmarks were identified and measured on CBCT and PAC and compared with the base standard measurements. The accuracy and reliability of the measurements were statistically evaluated and the validity was assessed by comparing the ability of the two image modalities to accurately diagnose an arbitrarily selected J-J/Ag-Ag ratio. All measurements were repeated at least 7 weeks apart. Intra-class correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the data. Results: All three methods were shown to be reliable as all had a mean error of less than 0.5 mm between repeated measurements. When compared with the base standard, CBCT measurements were shown to have higher agreement (ICC: 0.861-0.964) compared with measurements taken from PAC (ICC: 0.794-0.796). When the arbitrary J-J/Ag-Ag ratio was assessed, 18 per cent of cases were incorrectly diagnosed with a transverse discrepancy on the PAC compared with the CBCT which incorrectly diagnosed 8.7 per cent. Conclusion: CBCT was shown to be more reliable in assessing intermaxillary transverse discrepancy compared with PAC when using J-J/Ag-Ag ratios.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T08:29:01Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-32648
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T08:29:01Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Australian Society of Orthodontics
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-326482017-03-08T13:31:55Z The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography Cheung, G. Goonewardene, M. Islam, Shams Murray, K. Koong, B. validity posterior anterior orthodontics cephalometry transverse discrepancy cone beam computed tomography Aim: To assess the validity of using Jugale (J) and Antegonion (Ag) on Posterior-Anterior cephalograms (PAC) as landmarks for transverse intermaxillary analysis when compared with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: Conventional PAC and CBCT images were taken of 28 dry skulls. Craniometric measurements between the bilateral landmarks, Antegonion and Jugale, were obtained from the skulls using a microscribe and recorded as the base standard. The corresponding landmarks were identified and measured on CBCT and PAC and compared with the base standard measurements. The accuracy and reliability of the measurements were statistically evaluated and the validity was assessed by comparing the ability of the two image modalities to accurately diagnose an arbitrarily selected J-J/Ag-Ag ratio. All measurements were repeated at least 7 weeks apart. Intra-class correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the data. Results: All three methods were shown to be reliable as all had a mean error of less than 0.5 mm between repeated measurements. When compared with the base standard, CBCT measurements were shown to have higher agreement (ICC: 0.861-0.964) compared with measurements taken from PAC (ICC: 0.794-0.796). When the arbitrary J-J/Ag-Ag ratio was assessed, 18 per cent of cases were incorrectly diagnosed with a transverse discrepancy on the PAC compared with the CBCT which incorrectly diagnosed 8.7 per cent. Conclusion: CBCT was shown to be more reliable in assessing intermaxillary transverse discrepancy compared with PAC when using J-J/Ag-Ag ratios. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/32648 Australian Society of Orthodontics restricted
spellingShingle validity
posterior anterior
orthodontics
cephalometry
transverse discrepancy
cone beam computed tomography
Cheung, G.
Goonewardene, M.
Islam, Shams
Murray, K.
Koong, B.
The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title_full The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title_fullStr The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title_full_unstemmed The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title_short The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional PA cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
title_sort validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis on traditional pa cephalometry compared to cone-beam computed tomography
topic validity
posterior anterior
orthodontics
cephalometry
transverse discrepancy
cone beam computed tomography
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/32648