+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A reflection on radiographic cephalometry: the evaluation of sagittal discrepancy



A reflection on radiographic cephalometry: the evaluation of sagittal discrepancy



Journal of Orthodontics 41(3): 208-217



A critical review is presented of the basic properties and applications of cephalometry as a clinical tool with a focus on the evaluation of sagittal discrepancy. Diagnostic cephalometric assessments are subjective and not based on evidence. To assess individual skeletal and/or facial soft tissue form subjectively, selected norms are used. Norms have been developed for various ethnical groups to improve clinical applicability, but subjectivity remains. That subjectivity precludes application of a modern review system, making the present review a personal account. The cephalometric evaluation of sagittal discrepancy finds its historic origin in the Angle classification. Recent publications try to improve accuracy in classifying sagittal discrepancy. It remains unclear in what sense such efforts influence treatment decisions and/or treatment effect. Almost all selected landmarks are located on or dependent upon periosteal/endosteal bone image contours. Their homology is based on circumstantial reasoning and stability over time, which is implicitly assumed. However, implant growth studies and histological investigations show most landmarks to be unstable, as they are involved in displacement and bone remodelling. These landmarks are therefore heterologous when used for individual evaluation of change over time. Notwithstanding the above-indicated limitations, diagnostic cephalometric assessments are clinically useful and help to develop perceptions of balance and harmony and communication between colleagues and patients. There is no evidence-based method to prefer one particular diagnostic method. Landmark location accuracy and geometric issues do not play a decisive role. The subjective characteristic of diagnostic evaluations limits their power to size/shape comparisons. Structural superimposition is the valid biologically evidence-based method to provide advanced insight in individual growth and/or treatment changes and their variations.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 051236720

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24521748

DOI: 10.1179/1465313313y.0000000085


Related references

Xero radiographic cephalometry a comparison to conventional radiographic cephalometry. Journal of Dental Research 56(SPEC ISSUE B): B218, 1977

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of sagittal imbalance: a new radiographic assessment. American Journal of Orthopedics 40(3): E30-E34, 2011

Comparison of Beta and ANB Angles for Evaluation of Sagittal Skeletal Discrepancy: A Cephalometric Study. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 19(6): 739-742, 2018

Evaluation of the radiographic cephalometry learning process by a learning virtual object. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 136(1): 134-138, 2009

Radiographic cephalometry-incisal inclination determination of Filipinos as a parameter in evaluation of incisal set-up in maxillary denture prosthesis. Journal of the Philippine Dental Association 24(3): 5-8, 1972

Proposal for a new centering technique in sagittal cephalometry. Revue d'Odonto-Stomatologie 10(6): 457-465, 1981

Direct sagittal computed tomographic scans in the radiographic evaluation of the pelvis. Radiology 134(1): 255-257, 1980

Is there a difference in sagittal alignment of Blount's disease between radiographic and clinical evaluation?. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 472(12): 3807-3813, 2014

Assessment of Gender Dimorphism on Sagittal Cephalometry in Pakistani Population. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan 26(5): 390-393, 2016

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a computer-generated guiding device in bilateral sagittal split osteotomies. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 42(5): E195-E203, 2014

Radiographic evaluation of navicular position in the sagittal plane-correction following an extraosseous talotarsal stabilization procedure. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 50(5): 551-557, 2012

Radiographic stereophotogrammetric evaluation of intersegmental stability after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy and rigid fixation. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 59(12): 1427-35; Discussion 1435-6, 2001

Cephalometry: a non-radiographic approach. L' Orthodontie Francaise 60 Pt 2: 677-684, 1989

The palate: a mobile structure during growth. Study of the vertical movements observed using sagittal cephalometry. BulletinduGroupementInternationalPourlaRechercheScientifiqueenStomatologieandOdontologie294(3-4):93, 1986

Sagittal split technique 2. radiographic findings during the fixation period a radiographic follow up study. International Journal of Oral Surgery 8(2): 82-88, 1979