Abstract

BackgroundRadiographic 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 methodsIntraoral 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.ResultsBoth 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).ConclusionsLateral 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.

Highlights

  • Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning is based on comprehensive information obtained from the patient

  • Experienced orthodontist (EO) did not present a shift towards extraction nor non-extraction with lateral cephalometric radiograph (LCR) evaluation (McNemar = 0.999) whereas inexperienced orthodontist (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)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning is based on comprehensive information obtained from the patient These data usually consist of detailed medical history, clinical examination, study models, extraoral radiographs (panoramic-lateral cephalometric), intraoral radiographs (bitewing-periapical) and photographs (intraoral/extraoral) [1,2]. Among these tools, diagnostic radiation is the only critical application that might be harmful for the Radiographic examination is considered ‘justified’ only when detection of a condition that would change the mechanisms and timing of treatment is possible [5]. 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

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call