Sagittal Cephalometric Evaluation Without Point Nasion: Sagittal G-Triangle Analysis

Abstract This study aims to introduce a new sagittal cephalometric measurement, the sagittal G-triangle analysis, to accurately and reproducibly assess the sagittal jaw relationship. Sagittal G-triangle analysis, which consists of angles AXK and BXK, is based on an equilateral triangle (Bo–X–K) constructed using 5 cephalometric landmarks (Ba, Bo, Po, Or, and G). To test the diagnostic efficiency of this analysis, pretreatment cephalometric radiographs of 120 female and 120 male Chinese patients were randomly selected. For each enlisted subject, angles SNA and SNB as well as angles AXK and BXK were measured and recorded. On the basis of the SNA and SNB results, subjects were categorized into 6 groups: maxillary retrognathism, normal maxilla, maxillary prognathism, mandibular retrognathism, normal mandible, and mandibular prognathism. The diagnostic efficiency of angles AXK and BXK were evaluated using various statistical tests. A high correlation was detected between angles SNA and AXK as well as between angles SNB and BXK. Female patients with angle AXK between −2.255° and 2.860° and male patients with angle AXK between −2.615° and 2.120° were considered to have a normal maxilla position. Female patients with angle BXK between −2.61° and 2.93° and male patients with angle BXK between −2.275° and 0.610° were considered to have a normal mandible position. In conclusion, sagittal G-triangle analysis could be used as an alternative method for the evaluation of the sagittal position of the maxilla and mandible in cephalometric analysis.

[1]  H. Kim,et al.  Early Prediction of the Need for Orthognathic Surgery in Patients With Repaired Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Using Machine Learning and Longitudinal Lateral Cephalometric Analysis Data. , 2020, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[2]  Abhinav Shrestha,et al.  Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Analysis: The Changes in Condylar Position Pre- and Post-Orthognathic Surgery With Skeletal Class III Malocclusion , 2020, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[3]  C. Barut,et al.  Sphenoid Sinus in Relation to Age, Gender, and Cephalometric Indices , 2018, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[4]  C. Resnick,et al.  Maxillary Sagittal Position in Relation to the Forehead: A Target for Orthognathic Surgery , 2018, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[5]  S. R. Motamedian,et al.  Correlation between frontal sinus dimensions and cephalometric indices: A cross-sectional study , 2017, European Journal of Dentistry.

[6]  D. Bai,et al.  Correlation Between Cephalometric Measures and End-of-Treatment Facial Attractiveness , 2016, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[7]  M. Messersmith,et al.  Determining the sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible: a cephalometric analysis to clear up the confusion. , 2013, The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association.

[8]  W. Andrews AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[9]  Evelise Ono,et al.  Influence of the facial pattern on ANB, AF-BF, and Wits appraisal. , 2006, World journal of orthodontics.

[10]  K. Abramovitch RADIOGRAPHIC CEPHALOMETRY: FROM BASICS TO VIDEO IMAGING , 1996 .

[11]  J A McNamara,et al.  A method of cephalometric evaluation. , 1984, American journal of orthodontics.

[12]  Y. Kim,et al.  Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. , 1978, American journal of orthodontics.

[13]  Alex Jacobson,et al.  The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics.

[14]  D. Woodside The activator in interceptive orthodontics , 1975 .

[15]  D. Enlow A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth. , 1966, American journal of orthodontics.

[16]  Cecil C. Steiner,et al.  The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment , 1960 .

[17]  A. W. Moore Observations on facial growth and its clinical significance , 1959 .