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 |