ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of the reliability of ANB Sar and W measurements used in cephalometric diagnostics for the assessment of sagittal discrepancy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate cephalometric assessment is used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to confirm the reliability of Sar and W angle measurements with the results obtained for the ANB angle. The reliability of angular measurements for determining sagittal discrepancy was assessed after determining anthropometric points (N, A, B, S, W, M, G). These formed the ANB, Sar, and W angles, respectively. Cephalometric analyses were performed separately, 7 days apart, by 22 orthodontists. To determine inter-rater reliability, a two-way ANOVA without repeated measures was used, using the ICC(3,1) coefficient. To compare the reliability of the ANB, Sar, and W angles, the Blant-Altman plot, Dahlberg formula, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), R2 coefficients, and R&R coefficients were used. Pearson's chi-square test was used to assess the number of individuals classified into each skeletal class. The ICC(3.1) coefficient at a 95% confidence level was 0.941 for the ANB angle, 0.679 for the Sar angle, and 0.688 for the W angle. These results demonstrate excellent measurement reliability for the ANB angle and good reliability for the Sar and W angles. The participating orthodontists measured sagittal discrepancy significantly more accurately using the ANB angle compared to the Sar and W angles. One of the main factors implying poorer reliability of the Sar and W results is operator error. The difficulty in determining the values of the angle tests is related to the determination of new anthropometric points. The obtained results indicate higher reliability of the ANB measurement in assessing sagittal discrepancy in malocclusions. The Sar and W angles can be used to a limited extent, especially in the assessment of extreme cases. Further studies determining the usefulness of the new Sar and W angles in the orthodontic diagnosis of sagittal discrepancy should be correlated with previous measurements, including Wits or Beta angle measurements.
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.