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 Observers Subjects 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 Low
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%) Low
Radiographs at the end of treatment (T2) were traced by one observer