Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of the cone-beam transverse (CBT), jugale (J-point), and transpalatal width measurement (TWM) analyses in identifying clinical crossbite. Methods From a pool of patients with cone-beam computed tomography scans who came for orthodo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 2015-08, Vol.148 (2), p.253-263
Hauptverfasser: Miner, R. Matthew, Al Qabandi, Salem, Rigali, Paul H, Will, Leslie A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 263
container_issue 2
container_start_page 253
container_title American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
container_volume 148
creator Miner, R. Matthew
Al Qabandi, Salem
Rigali, Paul H
Will, Leslie A
description Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of the cone-beam transverse (CBT), jugale (J-point), and transpalatal width measurement (TWM) analyses in identifying clinical crossbite. Methods From a pool of patients with cone-beam computed tomography scans who came for orthodontic treatment, a sample of 133 patients was identified, with 54 in posterior crossbite (28 boys, 26 girls) and 79 not in crossbite (77 boys, 110 girls). No patient had dental compensation in this sample. After correcting for lateral mandibular shift, 33 of the 54 posterior crossbite patients had a bilateral crossbite, and 21 had a unilateral crossbite with no shift. The CBT, J-point, and TWM analyses were done for each patient from a coronal cross-section through the middle of both the maxillary and mandibular first molar crowns. The landmarks and measurements used were described in detail in a previous study. Posteroanterior cephalograms were constructed to simulate the geometry of the conventional cephalometric radiographs. All 3 analyses were performed on the same data set to predict whether crossbite was present. We used 2 assessments of diagnostic predictability: sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. While the 2 methods answer different questions, the prevalence of crossbite in a population will affect the positive and negative predictive values, but the sensitivity and specificity will not change. Results Of the 133 patients studied, 54 had a clinical crossbite, and 79 had no crossbite. The J-point analysis accurately predicted that 38 patients would have a crossbite, and 45 would not. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 52.78%, a negative predictive value of 73.77%, sensitivity of 70.4%, and specificity of 57%. The TWM analysis accurately predicted that 53 patients would have a crossbite, but it falsely predicted that an additional 68 patients would have crossbite. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 43.8%, a negative predictive value of 91.67%, sensitivity of 98.1%, and specificity of 13.9%. The CBT analysis correctly predicted a crossbite in 47 patients and accurately predicted no crossbite in 73 patients. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 88.68%, a negative predictive value of 91.25%, sensitivity of 87.0%, and specificity of 92.4%. Conclusions This study showed that although the TWM analysis had slightly better negative predictive and sensitivity values, the CBT analysis was ove
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.027
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1811885997</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0889540615005429</els_id><sourcerecordid>1701323144</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-e17932bfc09fe470b7019b7d92cc1d5a19c9b82835f1c5ec77a74ba3c875ac8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUuL1TAYhoMoznH0FwiSpZvWL7eTRFCQgzcYUbysQ5p-1da2qUk7cP69OZ7RhZtZZfO8eZPnJeQxg5oB2z8baj_ENtYcmKpB1MD1HbJjYHW114rfJTswxlZKwv6CPMh5AAArOdwnF3zPBTdC7sjnQ5yxatBPNMRp2VZs6Rqn-D355ceRrsnP-RpTRupnPx4z5pp-8mml_Dn9gD5vCTONHV0wdTFNfg74kNzr_Jjx0c15Sb69ef318K66-vj2_eHVVRWk1GuFTFvBmy6A7VBqaDQw2-jW8hBYqzyzwTamvFJ1LCgMWnstGy-C0coH48UleXq-d0nx14Z5dVOfA46jnzFu2THDmDHKWn07WroFF0zKgoozGlLMOWHnltRPPh0dA3fy7gb3x7s7eXcgXPFeUk9uCrZmwvZf5q_oArw4A1iMXPeYXA49FlttnzCsro39LQUv_8uHsZ_74MefeMQ8xC2VfcpPXOYO3JfT9KflmQJQklvxG2kUqV4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1701323144</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Miner, R. Matthew ; Al Qabandi, Salem ; Rigali, Paul H ; Will, Leslie A</creator><creatorcontrib>Miner, R. Matthew ; Al Qabandi, Salem ; Rigali, Paul H ; Will, Leslie A</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of the cone-beam transverse (CBT), jugale (J-point), and transpalatal width measurement (TWM) analyses in identifying clinical crossbite. Methods From a pool of patients with cone-beam computed tomography scans who came for orthodontic treatment, a sample of 133 patients was identified, with 54 in posterior crossbite (28 boys, 26 girls) and 79 not in crossbite (77 boys, 110 girls). No patient had dental compensation in this sample. After correcting for lateral mandibular shift, 33 of the 54 posterior crossbite patients had a bilateral crossbite, and 21 had a unilateral crossbite with no shift. The CBT, J-point, and TWM analyses were done for each patient from a coronal cross-section through the middle of both the maxillary and mandibular first molar crowns. The landmarks and measurements used were described in detail in a previous study. Posteroanterior cephalograms were constructed to simulate the geometry of the conventional cephalometric radiographs. All 3 analyses were performed on the same data set to predict whether crossbite was present. We used 2 assessments of diagnostic predictability: sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. While the 2 methods answer different questions, the prevalence of crossbite in a population will affect the positive and negative predictive values, but the sensitivity and specificity will not change. Results Of the 133 patients studied, 54 had a clinical crossbite, and 79 had no crossbite. The J-point analysis accurately predicted that 38 patients would have a crossbite, and 45 would not. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 52.78%, a negative predictive value of 73.77%, sensitivity of 70.4%, and specificity of 57%. The TWM analysis accurately predicted that 53 patients would have a crossbite, but it falsely predicted that an additional 68 patients would have crossbite. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 43.8%, a negative predictive value of 91.67%, sensitivity of 98.1%, and specificity of 13.9%. The CBT analysis correctly predicted a crossbite in 47 patients and accurately predicted no crossbite in 73 patients. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 88.68%, a negative predictive value of 91.25%, sensitivity of 87.0%, and specificity of 92.4%. Conclusions This study showed that although the TWM analysis had slightly better negative predictive and sensitivity values, the CBT analysis was overall better at both predictive value and sensitivity/specificity because of the limitations in J-point landmarks and the extent of the TWM analysis. Furthermore, the CBT analysis can distinguish between skeletal and dental discrepancies. Further work will test the analysis on additional samples with differing prevalences of crossbite.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-5406</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6752</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.027</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26232834</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anatomic Landmarks - diagnostic imaging ; Anatomy, Cross-Sectional ; Cephalometry - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Child ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Dentistry ; Facial Asymmetry - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Male ; Malocclusion - diagnostic imaging ; Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging ; Molar - diagnostic imaging ; Palate - diagnostic imaging ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tooth Crown - diagnostic imaging ; Zygoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><ispartof>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2015-08, Vol.148 (2), p.253-263</ispartof><rights>American Association of Orthodontists</rights><rights>2015 American Association of Orthodontists</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-e17932bfc09fe470b7019b7d92cc1d5a19c9b82835f1c5ec77a74ba3c875ac8a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-e17932bfc09fe470b7019b7d92cc1d5a19c9b82835f1c5ec77a74ba3c875ac8a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.027$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26232834$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miner, R. Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Qabandi, Salem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rigali, Paul H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Will, Leslie A</creatorcontrib><title>Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance</title><title>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</title><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><description>Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of the cone-beam transverse (CBT), jugale (J-point), and transpalatal width measurement (TWM) analyses in identifying clinical crossbite. Methods From a pool of patients with cone-beam computed tomography scans who came for orthodontic treatment, a sample of 133 patients was identified, with 54 in posterior crossbite (28 boys, 26 girls) and 79 not in crossbite (77 boys, 110 girls). No patient had dental compensation in this sample. After correcting for lateral mandibular shift, 33 of the 54 posterior crossbite patients had a bilateral crossbite, and 21 had a unilateral crossbite with no shift. The CBT, J-point, and TWM analyses were done for each patient from a coronal cross-section through the middle of both the maxillary and mandibular first molar crowns. The landmarks and measurements used were described in detail in a previous study. Posteroanterior cephalograms were constructed to simulate the geometry of the conventional cephalometric radiographs. All 3 analyses were performed on the same data set to predict whether crossbite was present. We used 2 assessments of diagnostic predictability: sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. While the 2 methods answer different questions, the prevalence of crossbite in a population will affect the positive and negative predictive values, but the sensitivity and specificity will not change. Results Of the 133 patients studied, 54 had a clinical crossbite, and 79 had no crossbite. The J-point analysis accurately predicted that 38 patients would have a crossbite, and 45 would not. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 52.78%, a negative predictive value of 73.77%, sensitivity of 70.4%, and specificity of 57%. The TWM analysis accurately predicted that 53 patients would have a crossbite, but it falsely predicted that an additional 68 patients would have crossbite. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 43.8%, a negative predictive value of 91.67%, sensitivity of 98.1%, and specificity of 13.9%. The CBT analysis correctly predicted a crossbite in 47 patients and accurately predicted no crossbite in 73 patients. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 88.68%, a negative predictive value of 91.25%, sensitivity of 87.0%, and specificity of 92.4%. Conclusions This study showed that although the TWM analysis had slightly better negative predictive and sensitivity values, the CBT analysis was overall better at both predictive value and sensitivity/specificity because of the limitations in J-point landmarks and the extent of the TWM analysis. Furthermore, the CBT analysis can distinguish between skeletal and dental discrepancies. Further work will test the analysis on additional samples with differing prevalences of crossbite.</description><subject>Anatomic Landmarks - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Anatomy, Cross-Sectional</subject><subject>Cephalometry - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Facial Asymmetry - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malocclusion - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Molar - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Palate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tooth Crown - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Zygoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><issn>0889-5406</issn><issn>1097-6752</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUuL1TAYhoMoznH0FwiSpZvWL7eTRFCQgzcYUbysQ5p-1da2qUk7cP69OZ7RhZtZZfO8eZPnJeQxg5oB2z8baj_ENtYcmKpB1MD1HbJjYHW114rfJTswxlZKwv6CPMh5AAArOdwnF3zPBTdC7sjnQ5yxatBPNMRp2VZs6Rqn-D355ceRrsnP-RpTRupnPx4z5pp-8mml_Dn9gD5vCTONHV0wdTFNfg74kNzr_Jjx0c15Sb69ef318K66-vj2_eHVVRWk1GuFTFvBmy6A7VBqaDQw2-jW8hBYqzyzwTamvFJ1LCgMWnstGy-C0coH48UleXq-d0nx14Z5dVOfA46jnzFu2THDmDHKWn07WroFF0zKgoozGlLMOWHnltRPPh0dA3fy7gb3x7s7eXcgXPFeUk9uCrZmwvZf5q_oArw4A1iMXPeYXA49FlttnzCsro39LQUv_8uHsZ_74MefeMQ8xC2VfcpPXOYO3JfT9KflmQJQklvxG2kUqV4</recordid><startdate>20150801</startdate><enddate>20150801</enddate><creator>Miner, R. Matthew</creator><creator>Al Qabandi, Salem</creator><creator>Rigali, Paul H</creator><creator>Will, Leslie A</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150801</creationdate><title>Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance</title><author>Miner, R. Matthew ; Al Qabandi, Salem ; Rigali, Paul H ; Will, Leslie A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-e17932bfc09fe470b7019b7d92cc1d5a19c9b82835f1c5ec77a74ba3c875ac8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Anatomic Landmarks - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Anatomy, Cross-Sectional</topic><topic>Cephalometry - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Facial Asymmetry - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malocclusion - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Molar - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Palate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tooth Crown - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Zygoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miner, R. Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Qabandi, Salem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rigali, Paul H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Will, Leslie A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miner, R. Matthew</au><au>Al Qabandi, Salem</au><au>Rigali, Paul H</au><au>Will, Leslie A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance</atitle><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><date>2015-08-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>148</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>253</spage><epage>263</epage><pages>253-263</pages><issn>0889-5406</issn><eissn>1097-6752</eissn><abstract>Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of the cone-beam transverse (CBT), jugale (J-point), and transpalatal width measurement (TWM) analyses in identifying clinical crossbite. Methods From a pool of patients with cone-beam computed tomography scans who came for orthodontic treatment, a sample of 133 patients was identified, with 54 in posterior crossbite (28 boys, 26 girls) and 79 not in crossbite (77 boys, 110 girls). No patient had dental compensation in this sample. After correcting for lateral mandibular shift, 33 of the 54 posterior crossbite patients had a bilateral crossbite, and 21 had a unilateral crossbite with no shift. The CBT, J-point, and TWM analyses were done for each patient from a coronal cross-section through the middle of both the maxillary and mandibular first molar crowns. The landmarks and measurements used were described in detail in a previous study. Posteroanterior cephalograms were constructed to simulate the geometry of the conventional cephalometric radiographs. All 3 analyses were performed on the same data set to predict whether crossbite was present. We used 2 assessments of diagnostic predictability: sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. While the 2 methods answer different questions, the prevalence of crossbite in a population will affect the positive and negative predictive values, but the sensitivity and specificity will not change. Results Of the 133 patients studied, 54 had a clinical crossbite, and 79 had no crossbite. The J-point analysis accurately predicted that 38 patients would have a crossbite, and 45 would not. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 52.78%, a negative predictive value of 73.77%, sensitivity of 70.4%, and specificity of 57%. The TWM analysis accurately predicted that 53 patients would have a crossbite, but it falsely predicted that an additional 68 patients would have crossbite. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 43.8%, a negative predictive value of 91.67%, sensitivity of 98.1%, and specificity of 13.9%. The CBT analysis correctly predicted a crossbite in 47 patients and accurately predicted no crossbite in 73 patients. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 88.68%, a negative predictive value of 91.25%, sensitivity of 87.0%, and specificity of 92.4%. Conclusions This study showed that although the TWM analysis had slightly better negative predictive and sensitivity values, the CBT analysis was overall better at both predictive value and sensitivity/specificity because of the limitations in J-point landmarks and the extent of the TWM analysis. Furthermore, the CBT analysis can distinguish between skeletal and dental discrepancies. Further work will test the analysis on additional samples with differing prevalences of crossbite.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26232834</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.027</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0889-5406
ispartof American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2015-08, Vol.148 (2), p.253-263
issn 0889-5406
1097-6752
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1811885997
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Anatomic Landmarks - diagnostic imaging
Anatomy, Cross-Sectional
Cephalometry - statistics & numerical data
Child
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics & numerical data
Dentistry
Facial Asymmetry - diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - statistics & numerical data
Male
Malocclusion - diagnostic imaging
Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging
Molar - diagnostic imaging
Palate - diagnostic imaging
Predictive Value of Tests
Retrospective Studies
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tooth Crown - diagnostic imaging
Zygoma - diagnostic imaging
title Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T00%3A32%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cone-beam%20computed%20tomography%20transverse%20analyses.%20Part%202:%20Measures%20of%20performance&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20orthodontics%20and%20dentofacial%20orthopedics&rft.au=Miner,%20R.%20Matthew&rft.date=2015-08-01&rft.volume=148&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=253&rft.epage=263&rft.pages=253-263&rft.issn=0889-5406&rft.eissn=1097-6752&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.027&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1701323144%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1701323144&rft_id=info:pmid/26232834&rft_els_id=S0889540615005429&rfr_iscdi=true