Sensitivity and Specificity of Cephalometric Measures for the Diagnosis of Sagittal Skeletal Malocclusion

Lucía Victoria Bernal, Diana Maria Barbosa-Liz, Natalia Echeverry, Arelis Pérez, Adriana Posada

Abstract


Objective:To evaluate and compare sensitivity and specificity of ANB, Wits, APDI and AF-BF to diagnose sagittal skeletal malocclusions, in children between 6 to 12 years old, using ROC curves, a widely accepted method for the analysis and evaluation of diagnostic tests. Material and Methods:A descriptive-comparative study of diagnostic tests was conducted. From a population of 3,000 children, a non-probabilistic sample of 209 was selected. The clinical classification of the patients as class I, II or III, made by a group of experts based on the visual inspection of models and photographs, was chosen as the gold standard. After calibration (ICC>0.94) the variables were measured in cephalograms. Eight ROC curves were plotted (I vs II, and I vs III for each one of the variables). The area under the curve was measured and compared (Ji-square test). Cut points were established. Results:To discriminate Class I from II, ANB showed the largest area under the curve (AUC) (0.876) and the cut point (best sensitivity and specificity) was at 5.75°. To discriminate class I from III, Wits showed the largest AUC (0.874) with a cut point of -3.25 mm. There were no statistical differences between the AUC for the four variables (p=0.48 y p=0.38 for class I-II and I-III). Conclusion:ANB and Wits performed better for the diagnosis of class II and III, respectively. Cut points in children were different from those reported in adults.


Keywords


Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Cephalometry; Malocclusion; ROC Curve.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Freitas MR, Santos MA, Freitas KM, Janson G, Freitas DS, Henriques JF. Cephalometric characterization of skeletal class II, division 1 malocclusion in white Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci 2005; 13(2):198-203. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572005000200020

Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: The Beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004; 126(1):100-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889540604002483

Davis GSJ, Cannon JL, Messersmith ML. Determining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible: A cephalometric analysis to clear up the confusion. J Tenn Dent Assoc 2013; 93(1):22-30.

Kannan S, Goyaliya A, Gupta R. Comparative assessment of sagittal maxillo-mandibular jaw relationship - A cephalometric study. J Oral Heal Comm Dent 2012; 6(1):14-7.

Han UK, Vig KWL, Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ. Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 100(3):212-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70058-5

Chang H-P. Assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987; 92(2):117-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90366-0

Downs W. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 1956; 26(4):191-212.

Riedel R. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1952; 22(3):142-5.

Hussels W, Nanda R. Analysis of factors affecting angle ANB. Am J Orthod 1984; 85(5):411-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90162-3

Freeman RS. Adjusting A-N-B angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod 1981; 51(2):162-71.

Bishara S, Fahl J, Peterson L. Longitudinal changes in the ANB angle and Wits appraisal: Clinical implications. Am J Orthod 1983; 84(2):133-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90177-X

Ferrazini G. Critical evaluation of the ANB angle. Am J Orthod 1976; 69(6):620-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90144-5

Oktay H. A comparison of ANB, WITS, AF-BF, and APDI measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 99(2):122-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70114-C

Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 124(5):470-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2

Jacobson A. Application of the “Wits” appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976; 70(2):179-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(76)90318-3

Sherman SL, Woods M, Nanda RS. The longitudinal effects of growth on the Wits appraisal. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 93(5):429-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90103-5

Kim Y, Vietas J. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: An adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1978; 73(6):619-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90223-3

Van Erkel AR, Pattynama PMT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: Basic principles and applications in radiology. Eur J Radiol 1998; 27(2):88-94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(97)00157-5

Hazra A, Gogtay N. Biostatistics series module 7: The statistics of diagnostic tests. Indian J Dermatol 2017; 62(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.198047

Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PMM. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11(50):iii-51. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta11500

Metz CE. ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21(9):720-33.

Kim Y, Kim U. Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113(5):538-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70265-3

Andersons G, Fields H, Beck M., Chacon G, Vig K. Development of cephalometric norms using a unified facial and dental approach. Angle Orthod 2006; 76(4):612-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.010

Freudenthaler JW, Čelar AG, Schneider B. Overbite depth and anteroposterior dysplasia indicators: The relationship between occlusal and skeletal patterns using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22(1):75-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.1.75

Zhou L, Mok CW, Hägg U, McGrath C, Bendeus M, Wu J. Anteroposterior dental arch and jaw-base relationships in a population sample. Angle Orthod 2008; 78(6):1023-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/100107-467.1

Shrikant S, Ganapathy K, Reddy R, Thomas M. Correlation of the anteroposterior relationships of the dental arch and jaw-base in subjects with Class I, Class II and Class III malocclusions. Int J Contemp Dent 2011; 2(2):68-73.

Suzuki S, Moro-Oka T, Choudhry NK. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57(5):461-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.017

Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PMM. The diagnostic odds ratio: A single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56(11):1129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X

Abu El-Ela WH, Farid MM, Mostafa MSE-D. Intraoral versus extraoral bitewing radiography in detection of enamel proximal caries: an ex vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45(4):20150326. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150326

Terry GL, Noujeim M, Langlais RP, Moore WS, Prihoda TJ. A clinical comparison of extraoral panoramic and intraoral radiographic modalities for detecting proximal caries and visualizing open posterior interproximal contacts. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2016; 45(4):20150159. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150159

Alqerban A, Storms A-S, Voet M, Fieuws S, Willems G. Early prediction of maxillary canine impaction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45(3):20150232. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150232

Kelly MP, Vorperian HK, Wang Y, Tillman KK, Werner HM, Chung MK, et al. Characterizing mandibular growth using three-dimensional imaging techniques and anatomic landmarks. Arch Oral Biol 2017; 77:27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.01.018

Gandini P, Mancini M, Andreani F. A comparison of hand-wrist bone and cervical vertebral analyses in measuring skeletal maturation. Angle Orthod 2006; 76(6):984-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/070605-217




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.24

PBOCI IS A MEMBER OF CROSSREF AND ALL THE CONTENT OF ITS JOURNALS ARE LINKED BY DOIS THROUGH CROSSREF.