Details
Category: Volume 10 Issue 05 May 2022
Hits: 517

Title: Correlation of Cephalometric and Photographic Measurements in Different Skeletal Patterns

Authors: Dr Neha Deshmukh, Dr Sunilkumar Pulluri, Dr Akash Lavate, Dr Sneha Hoshing, Dr Shrinivas Ambarkar, Dr Sneha Shinde, Dr Kalyani Chatla

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v10i5.13

Abstract

Introduction: Photographic analysis has been considered as an essential tool for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, lending to its cost effective and non-hazardous nature. It is imperative to assess the hard and soft tissue relationships in order to evaluate if photographs can be used as an alternative to radiographic analysis. The aim of this study was to investigate the interrelationship of cephalometric hard tissue measurements with their soft tissue counterparts in individuals with different skeletal patterns.

Materials and Method: Lateral cephalograms and standardized photographic records were obtained for 150 subjects (79 girls, 71 boys, 9-16 years) which were divided into three groups of Class I, II and III skeletal jaw bases. Analogous photographic and cephalometric values were compared to evaluate Peason’s correlation coefficients. Correlations were compared to evaluate the influence of skeletal pattern as well as sexual dimorphism on hard and soft tissue relationships.

Results: Strong correlation was observed amongst most measurements. Sexual dimorphism was prominent in photographic variables. Amongst all three groups combined, the photographic variable that was most analogous with its cephalometric variable was N’perp-A’(r = 0.988) and N’perp-Pog’ (r = 0.988) and least analogous was LAFH’/AFH’ (r = 0.416).

Conclusion: Photographic method is a reliable and repeatable alternative to cephalometric technique, irrespective of one’s gender or skeletal pattern. Anteroposterior jaw discrepancy can be analysed with soft tissue photographs more efficiently as compared to vertical discrepancies

Keywords: Photography, Cephalometry, Skeletal pattern, Diagnosis.

References

  1. Dimaggio FR, Ciusa V, Sforza C, Ferrario VF. Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(4): 475–80.
  2. Gomes LDCR, Horta KOC, Gandini LG, Gonçalves M, Gonçalves JR. Photographic assessment of cephalometric measurements. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(6): 1049–58.
  3. Zhang X, Hans MG, Graham G, Kirchner HL, Redline S. Correlations between cephalometric and facial photographic measurements of craniofacial form. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131(1):67–71.
  4. Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113(6):674–84.
  5. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Tartaglia G. Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;103(4):327–37.
  6. Han K, Kwon HJ, Choi TH, Kim JH, Son D. Comparison of anthropometry with photogrammetry based on a standardized clinical photographic technique using a cephalostat and chair. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg [Internet]. 2010;38 (2):96–107. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.04.003
  7. Ozdemir ST, Sigirli D, Ercan I, Cankur NS. Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of Healthy Turkish young adults: Anthropometric measurements. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33(2):175–84.
  8. Staudt CB, Kiliaridis S. A nonradiographic approach to detect Class III skeletal discrepancies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2009;136(1):52–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.025
  9. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jorgensen GJ, Jakobsen JR. A computer assisted photogrammetric analysis of soft tissue changes after orthodontic treatment. Part I: Methodology and reliability. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;107(6):633–9.
  10. Aksu M, Kaya D, Kocadereli I. Reliability of reference distances used in photogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):670–7.
  11. Fernández-Riveiro P, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Linear photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;122(1):59–66.
  12. Bishara SE, Jorgensen GJ, Jakobsen JR. Changes in facial dimensions assessed from lateral and frontal photographs. Part I--Methodology. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 1995;108(4):389–93. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7484968
  13. Bishara SE, Jorgensen GJ, Jakobsen JR. Changes in facial dimensions assessed from lateral and frontal photographs. Part II-Results and conclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;108(5):489–99.
  14. Bittner C, Pancherz H. Facial morphology and malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;97(4):308–15.
  15. Bjork A. Some biological aspects of prognatism and occlusion of the teeth. Angle Orthod. 1951;21(1):3–27.
  16. Moorrees CFA, Kean MR. Natural head position, a basic consideration of cephalometric radiographs. Am J Phys Anthr. 1956;16(1):213–34.
  17. Ferrario VF, Serrao G, Ciusa V, Morini M, Sforza C. Cephalometric and in Vivo Measurements of Maxillomandibular Anteroposterior Discrepancies: A Preliminary Regression Study. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(6):579–84.

Corresponding Author

Dr Neha Deshmukh