Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis

Objectives Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral investigations 2022-01, Vol.26 (1), p.353-364
Hauptverfasser: Doberschütz, Philine Henriette, Schwahn, Christian, Krey, Karl-Friedrich
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 364
container_issue 1
container_start_page 353
container_title Clinical oral investigations
container_volume 26
creator Doberschütz, Philine Henriette
Schwahn, Christian
Krey, Karl-Friedrich
description Objectives Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire’s whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. Materials/methods Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. Results Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. Conclusions The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. Clinical Relevance The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8791903</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2622860713</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-9d14f82323071baa98e163f16df393c1ad9bb21a661648f776d133d0adf2300c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcuO1DAQjBCIXRZ-gAOyxIVLwK9xEg5IMMtLWokLnK2O057xyomD7Vlpb3wDN35vvwRnZhkeBy52t7uq2qWqqseMPmeUNi9SOVpZU85qKilVtbhTnTIpStE07O6-5rXqWnZSPUjpklImVSPuVydC0hWVfHVafV_jvAUfRszRGQIT-OuEidgQifFoM5khO5xyekmApFyalJ0BT2CeYwCzJTkQE8YZIpK8RXIF0UHvi0aw5Bw9uIg3334kYiJMLlgwbmHvF7m0sN9g3OB0fHpY3bPgEz66vc-qL-_efl5_qC8-vf-4fn1RG9nIXHcDk7blggvasB6ga5EpYZkarOiEYTB0fc8ZKMWUbG3TqIEJMVAYbKFQI86qVwfdedePOJhiMoLXc3QjxGsdwOm_J5Pb6k240m3TsY6KIvDsViCGrztMWY8uGfQeJgy7pPlKSMXKLlqgT_-BXoZdLIYLSnHequJhEeQHlIkhpYj2-BlG9RK5PkSuS-R6H7leSE_-tHGk_Mq4AMQBkMpo2mD8vfs_sj8BIvG60g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2622860713</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette ; Schwahn, Christian ; Krey, Karl-Friedrich</creator><creatorcontrib>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette ; Schwahn, Christian ; Krey, Karl-Friedrich</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire’s whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. Materials/methods Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. Results Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. Conclusions The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. Clinical Relevance The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34050425</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Cephalometry ; Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging ; Cleft lip/palate ; Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging ; Correlation analysis ; Dentistry ; Factor analysis ; Humans ; Medicine ; Original ; Original Article ; Patients ; Reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Skull ; Statistics ; Variables</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral investigations, 2022-01, Vol.26 (1), p.353-364</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-9d14f82323071baa98e163f16df393c1ad9bb21a661648f776d133d0adf2300c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-9d14f82323071baa98e163f16df393c1ad9bb21a661648f776d133d0adf2300c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1120-8398</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34050425$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwahn, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krey, Karl-Friedrich</creatorcontrib><title>Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis</title><title>Clinical oral investigations</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Invest</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><description>Objectives Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire’s whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. Materials/methods Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. Results Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. Conclusions The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. Clinical Relevance The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.</description><subject>Cephalometry</subject><subject>Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Cleft lip/palate</subject><subject>Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Factor analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Skull</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Variables</subject><issn>1432-6981</issn><issn>1436-3771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UcuO1DAQjBCIXRZ-gAOyxIVLwK9xEg5IMMtLWokLnK2O057xyomD7Vlpb3wDN35vvwRnZhkeBy52t7uq2qWqqseMPmeUNi9SOVpZU85qKilVtbhTnTIpStE07O6-5rXqWnZSPUjpklImVSPuVydC0hWVfHVafV_jvAUfRszRGQIT-OuEidgQifFoM5khO5xyekmApFyalJ0BT2CeYwCzJTkQE8YZIpK8RXIF0UHvi0aw5Bw9uIg3334kYiJMLlgwbmHvF7m0sN9g3OB0fHpY3bPgEz66vc-qL-_efl5_qC8-vf-4fn1RG9nIXHcDk7blggvasB6ga5EpYZkarOiEYTB0fc8ZKMWUbG3TqIEJMVAYbKFQI86qVwfdedePOJhiMoLXc3QjxGsdwOm_J5Pb6k240m3TsY6KIvDsViCGrztMWY8uGfQeJgy7pPlKSMXKLlqgT_-BXoZdLIYLSnHequJhEeQHlIkhpYj2-BlG9RK5PkSuS-R6H7leSE_-tHGk_Mq4AMQBkMpo2mD8vfs_sj8BIvG60g</recordid><startdate>20220101</startdate><enddate>20220101</enddate><creator>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette</creator><creator>Schwahn, Christian</creator><creator>Krey, Karl-Friedrich</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><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>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1120-8398</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220101</creationdate><title>Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis</title><author>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette ; Schwahn, Christian ; Krey, Karl-Friedrich</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-9d14f82323071baa98e163f16df393c1ad9bb21a661648f776d133d0adf2300c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Cephalometry</topic><topic>Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Cleft lip/palate</topic><topic>Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Factor analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Skull</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Variables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwahn, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krey, Karl-Friedrich</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Doberschütz, Philine Henriette</au><au>Schwahn, Christian</au><au>Krey, Karl-Friedrich</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle><stitle>Clin Oral Invest</stitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><date>2022-01-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>353</spage><epage>364</epage><pages>353-364</pages><issn>1432-6981</issn><eissn>1436-3771</eissn><abstract>Objectives Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire’s whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. Materials/methods Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. Results Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. Conclusions The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. Clinical Relevance The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>34050425</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1120-8398</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1432-6981
ispartof Clinical oral investigations, 2022-01, Vol.26 (1), p.353-364
issn 1432-6981
1436-3771
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8791903
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Cephalometry
Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging
Cleft lip/palate
Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging
Correlation analysis
Dentistry
Factor analysis
Humans
Medicine
Original
Original Article
Patients
Reproducibility
Reproducibility of Results
Skull
Statistics
Variables
title Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire’s craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T10%3A47%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cephalometric%20analyses%20for%20cleft%20patients:%20a%20statistical%20approach%20to%20compare%20the%20variables%20of%20Delaire%E2%80%99s%20craniofacial%20analysis%20to%20Bergen%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20investigations&rft.au=Dobersch%C3%BCtz,%20Philine%20Henriette&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=353&rft.epage=364&rft.pages=353-364&rft.issn=1432-6981&rft.eissn=1436-3771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00784-021-04006-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2622860713%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2622860713&rft_id=info:pmid/34050425&rfr_iscdi=true