ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Agreement between cephalometric analyses in diagnosing the dento-skeletal characteristics of malocclusion.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Vertical and Sagittal Cephalometric Parameters in Differentiating Skeletal Malocclusion in Saudi Adults: A Cephalometric Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conflicting results from different cephalometric analyses is a common problem with broader implications but has not received due attention. This study evaluated the agreement between common cephalometric analyses in diagnosing the essential dento-skeletal characteristics of malocclusion. Material and methods: A total of 125 lateral cephalograms were analyzed digitally using Downs, Steiner, Wits, Tweed, Bjork, Ricketts, and McNamara analysis. The diagnosis of sagittal jaw relation (Class 1/2/3), maxillary and mandibular positions (Orthognathic/Prognathic/Retrognathic), growth pattern (Normodivergent/Hypodivergent/Hyperdivergent), and upper and lower incisors positions (Normal/Proclined/Retroclined) were established based on each analysis. The extent of agreement between the analyses was assessed using Kappa statistics. Results: The overall agreement between analyses was moderate for sagittal jaw relationship [k = 0.41 (0.37-0.45)], fair for growth pattern [k = 0.24 (0.20-0.27)], mandibular position [k = 0.25, (0.20-0.30)], upper incisor (k = 0.38, CI = 0.32-0.44) and lower incisor [k = 0.21 (0.17-0.25)] positions, and only slight for maxillary position [k = 0.18 (0.13-0.23)]. For pairwise comparisons of analyses, the agreement was moderate to substantial for the sagittal jaw relationship (except for comparisons involving McNamara analysis) and slight to moderate for other variables. Also, the diagnosis of normal dentofacial relationships (Class 1 and normodivergent skeletal pattern, orthognathic jaw positions, and normal incisor positions) was less consistent than those of deviant subgroups. Conclusions: The agreement between the cephalometric analyses evaluated was moderate for sagittal jaw relation and only fair for most other dento-skeletal characteristics. McNamara's analysis showed less agreement with others. These highlight the need for a more cautious and scientific approach to Cephalometrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.