New Sagittal and Vertical Cephalometric Analysis Methods: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) Vol. 12; no. 7; p. 1723
• Main Authors: Kotuła, Jacek, Kuc, Anna Ewa, Lis, Joanna, Kawala, Beata, Sarul, Michał
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 15.07.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Bias; cephalometric analysis; Clinical trials; Dimensional analysis; Orthodontics; Planning; sagittal discrepancy; Systematic Review; vertical discrepancy; cephalometric analysis; vertical discrepancy; sagittal discrepancy
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071723

Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The main objectives of correct cephalometric analysis include resolving anteroposterior and vertical maxillary and mandibular base discrepancies. For a diagnostic tool to be of value, it should be precise, reliable and reproducible. Unfortunately, according to some studies, the accuracy of input and, therefore, the diagnostic reliability of some of the points and measurements may not be satisfactory. To this end, new cephalometric measurements are being developed with increased precision. In order to properly and definitively determine the usefulness of a given measurement in cephalometric diagnosis, it is necessary to carry out a critical evaluation of available studies. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available scientific literature describing new landmarks and reference linear and angular measurements of 2D cephalometric analyses assessing the sagittal and vertical discrepancy in the position of jaw bases since the last systematic review in 2013. The secondary aim was to assess the accuracy and reliability of new anthropometric landmarks and reference planes in relation to those used previously, and their instability in relation to growth and orthodontic tooth movements. To carry out the intended plan, electronic databases such as PubMed, Scholar Google, Web of Science and Pro Quest were searched using specific keywords. Initially, a total of 1451 articles were retrieved. Then, duplicate articles in all databases were excluded from the resulting publications. The results showed that despite such a high number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, only 12 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the sagittal plane and 4 studies on new cephalometric analyses in the horizontal plane met the criteria and, as a result, were included in the review.