Volume 31, Issue 9 (December 2020)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2020, 31(9): 658-666 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Razavi Rouhani Z, Razavi Rouhani S A, Razeghinejad M H. SURVEY ON THE SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY OF BETA ANGLE IN DIFFERENTIATING SKELETAL CLASS II AND III MALOCCLUSIONS FROM CLASS I. Studies in Medical Sciences 2020; 31 (9) :658-666
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-4332-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-4332-en.html
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran. (Corresponding Author) , razeghiortho@gmail.com
Abstract: (2069 Views)
Background & Aims: A successful treatment in the field of medical sciences depends on an accurate diagnosis. In orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning also analyzing the sagittal jaw base relationship is important. Various methods have been suggested for this. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of beta angle in sagittal jaw base relationship diagnosis.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional analytical study, by clinical examination and consideration of facial profile, dental occlusion and evaluation of the pre-treatment special lateral cephalometric indices, a total of 112 patients (36 male and 76 female) with mean age of 14.8 ± 3 years were selected by simple non-random sampling (35 patients in class I, 41 in class II and 36 in class III group). Then, the beta angle was hand traced by the Baik's method. Also, mean and standard deviation of the beta angle in three malocclusion groups were calculated and their sensitivity and specificity were measured by the ANOVA, Wilks' lambda, and Discriminant analysis tests.
Results: According to data analysis, the mean of beta angle in the three groups mentioned above (class I, II, III) is 32.5 ± 2.8, 25.9 ± 4 and 40.3 ± 3.8, respectively and there are significant differences (p=0) in three groups. The cutoff point in differentiating class I from II is 29 degrees and for the class I from III is 36. In other words, the values less than 29 showed skeletal class II pattern and the values higher than 36 indicated class III pattern. According to these results, the sensitivity and specificity in differentiating class I from class II are 74% and 88.5% while the sensitivity and specificity in differentiating class I from class III are 88% and 91%, respectively.
Conclusion: Beta angle by itself shows each patient's belonging to skeletal class I, II or III groups to amount of 78.6%.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional analytical study, by clinical examination and consideration of facial profile, dental occlusion and evaluation of the pre-treatment special lateral cephalometric indices, a total of 112 patients (36 male and 76 female) with mean age of 14.8 ± 3 years were selected by simple non-random sampling (35 patients in class I, 41 in class II and 36 in class III group). Then, the beta angle was hand traced by the Baik's method. Also, mean and standard deviation of the beta angle in three malocclusion groups were calculated and their sensitivity and specificity were measured by the ANOVA, Wilks' lambda, and Discriminant analysis tests.
Results: According to data analysis, the mean of beta angle in the three groups mentioned above (class I, II, III) is 32.5 ± 2.8, 25.9 ± 4 and 40.3 ± 3.8, respectively and there are significant differences (p=0) in three groups. The cutoff point in differentiating class I from II is 29 degrees and for the class I from III is 36. In other words, the values less than 29 showed skeletal class II pattern and the values higher than 36 indicated class III pattern. According to these results, the sensitivity and specificity in differentiating class I from class II are 74% and 88.5% while the sensitivity and specificity in differentiating class I from class III are 88% and 91%, respectively.
Conclusion: Beta angle by itself shows each patient's belonging to skeletal class I, II or III groups to amount of 78.6%.
References
1. Millett D, Gravely JF. The assessment of antero-posterior dental base relationships. Br J Orthod 1991; 18:285-97. [DOI:10.1179/bjo.18.4.285] [PMID]
2. Zupancic S, Pohar M, Farcnik F, Ovsenik M. Overjet as a predictor of sagittal skeletal relationships. Eur J Orthod 2008 ; 30(3):269-73. [DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjm130] [PMID]
3. Fattahi HR, Pakshir HR, Molaverdi F. A New Index (μ-angle) for Evaluating Sagittal Jaw Relationship in Comparison with β- Angle; A Cephalometric Study. Shiraz Dent J 2006; 7(1,2):81-8. [Google Scholar]
4. Reidel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1952; 22:142-5. [Google Scholar]
5. Al-Abdwani R, Moles D, Noar JH. Change of Incisor Inclination Effects on Points A and B. Angle Orthod 2009;79(3):462-7.
https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2009)079[0462:COIIEO]2.0.CO;2 [DOI:10.2319/041708-218.1]
6. Jacobson A. radiographic cephalometry from basics to video imaging. 1st ed. Chicago, Quintessence: Publishing Co, Inc.; 1995. [URL]
7. Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1978;73:619-33. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9416(78)90223-3]
8. Jacobson A. The 'wits' appraisal of the jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67:125-38. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2]
9. Jacobson A. The 'wits' appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:470-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00540-7]
10. Marinho Del Santo Jr. Influence of occlusal plane inclination on ANB and Wits assessments of anteroposterior jaw relationships. Am J Orthod Dentof Orthop 2006; 129:641-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.025] [PMID]
11. Haynes S, Chau M. The reproducibility and repeatability of the wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;107:640-7. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70108-7]
12. Demisch A, Gebauer U, Zila W. Comparison of three cephalometric measurement of sagittal jaw relationship-angle ANB, Wits appraisal and AB-occlusal angle. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1977; 105(4):269-81.
13. Rushton R, Cohen AM, linney FD. The relationship and reproducibility of angle ANB and the 'wits' appraisal. Br J Orthod 1991;18:225-31. [DOI:10.1179/bjo.18.3.225] [PMID]
14. Sherman SL, Woods M, Nanda RS. The longitudinal effects of growth on the wits appraisal. Am J Orthod Dentofaac Orthop 1988:93:429-36. [DOI:10.1016/0889-5406(88)90103-5]
15. Nanda RS, Merrill RM. Cephalometric assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;105:328-44. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70127-X]
16. Hall-Scott J. The maxillary - mandibular planes angle (MM) bisector:A new reference plane for antero-posterior measurement of the dental bases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;105:583-91. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70143-1]
17. Ferrario VF, Serrao G, Ciusa V, Morini M, Sforza C. Cephalometric and in vivo measurements of maxillomandibular anteroposterior discrepancies: apreliminary regression study. Angle Orthod 2002;72:579-84. [Google Scholar]
18. Hurmerinta K, Rahkamo A, Haavikko K. Comparison between cephalometric classification methods for sagittal jaw relationships. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105(3):221-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00204.x] [PMID]
19. Sarhan OA. A new cephalomtric parameter to aid in dental base relationship analysis. Angle Orthod 1988;60(1):59-64. [Google Scholar]
20. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta Angle. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004; 126:100-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026] [PMID]
21. Day S, Graham D. Sample size estimation for comparing two or more treatment groups in clinical trial. Stat Med 1991;10:33 -43. [DOI:10.1002/sim.4780100109] [PMID]
22. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. louise, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2013. [URL]
23. Basafa M, Gahanbeen A. Comparative Assessment of Accuracy of Contemporary Cephalometric Analysis in Diagnosis of Antero-posterior Jaw Relationship. Shiraz Univ Dent J 2005; 6 (1,2):1-9. [Google Scholar]
24. Dunn G. Design and analysis of reliability studies, the statistical evaluation of measurement errors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989. P.5-10. [Google Scholar]
25. Dale JG, Dale HC. Interceptive guidance of occlusion with emphasis ondiagnosis. In Graber Thomas M. Vanarsdall Robert L. Orthodontics Current principles and techniques. 3rd ed. St. louise, Mosby; 2000. P:376. [Google Scholar]
26. Aparna P, Kumar D, Prasad M, Shamnur N, Kumar A, KR S, et al. Comparative assessment of sagittalskeletal discrepancy: a cephalometric study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(4):38-41. [Google Scholar]
27. Hajighadimi M, Dougherty HL, Garakani F. Cephalometric evaluation of Iranian children and its comparison with Tweed's and Steiner's standards. Am J Orthod 1981; 79(2): 192-7. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9416(81)90317-1]
28. Moorrees CFA. Normal variation and its bearing on the use of cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1953; 39:942-50. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9416(53)90153-5]
29. Prasad M, Reddy KP, Talapaneni AK, Chaitanya N, Bhaskar Reddy MV, Patil R. Establishment of norms of the beta angle to assess the sagittal discrepancy for Nellore districtpopulation. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2013;4(2):409-13. [DOI:10.4103/0976-9668.117017] [PMID] [PMCID]
30. Singh G, Verma S, Singh DP, Yadav SK, Yadav AB. Correlation of Beta Angle with Antero-Posterior Dysplasia Indicators and FMA: An Institution Based Cephalometric Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(11): 75-8. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2016/23553.8912] [PMID] [PMCID]
31. Proffit WR, Sarver DM. Diagnosis: Gathering and organizing the appropriate information. In: Proffit WR, White RP, Sarver DM. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity. 1st ed. St. louise, Mosby; 2000. P.149.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
