Skip to main content

Table 3 Publications on cephalometric analysis

From: Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review

Authors (year)

Aim of the study



Design of the study

Statistical method

Results according to authors

Level of evidence

De Abreu [28]

Assessment criteria of unanimity for different cephalometric analyses

Not referred

129 patients

Diagnosis performed based on Ricketts, Steiner, Cervera and Coutand cephalometric analyses

Not referred

3 out of 61 cases with similar diagnosis. In 23 cases, 4 analyses achieved similar diagnosis. In 13 cases, 3 different diagnoses were obtained. In 8 cases, the diagnosis was different for class II and class III


Abdullah et al. [29]

Examine accuracy and precision of Steiner analysis for changes on ANB angle, the Pg-NB distance and upper and lower incisor positions

Different orthodontists (not reference to the number)

275 patients

Radiographs traced and analysed by orthodontists according to the Steiner analysis

Paired t test, mean and standard deviation

The predicted change in L1 (lower incisor) to NB was underestimated by 0.8 mm. Only the prediction for pogonion and NB showed improvement of the precision (30%)


Radiographs at the end of treatment (T2) were traced by one observer