ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and repeatability of new cephalometric points introduced in Tau angle analysis, in contrast to the gold standard, which is the analysis of the ANB angle. For this purpose, an attempt was made to assess the repeatability and reliability of the introduction of anthropometric points by evaluating both inter- and intraobserver parameters, as well as the agreement among the orthodontists participating in the study. METHODS: Repeatability and reliability assessments for all six anthropometric points (N, A, B, T, M, G) used in the analysis of the ANB and Tau angles were conducted individually by 29 orthodontists. This assessment was performed in triplicate on the day of the study, on the day following the first study, and on the seventh day after the second study. Measurement errors for the ANB and Tau angles were evaluated using the Dahlberg formula and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: The orthodontists in the study measured sagittal discrepancy significantly more accurately using the ANB angle compared to the Tau angle (p < 0.001). The Dahlberg error for measuring the Tau angle was three times greater than that for the ANB angle (p < 0.001). Additionally, the ICC for the Tau angle was more than 3.5 times smaller than that for the ANB angle, while the R&R error for Tau measurement was more than three times greater than that for the ANB angle (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of ANB angle measurements exhibit fewer errors in comparison to Tau angle measurements.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Root resorption is one of the complications of orthodontic treatment, and has a varied and unclear aetiology. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between upper incisor resorption and contact with the incisive canal and the risk of resorption during orthodontic treatment associated with upper incisor retraction and torque control. SEARCH METHODS: According to PRISMA guidelines, the main research question was defined in PICO. Scientific databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for linking keywords: Resorption of roots incisive canal, Resorption of roots nasopalatine canal, Incisive canal retraction and Nasopalatine canal retraction. SELECTION CRITERIA: No time filters were applied due to the significantly limited number of studies. Publications in the English language were selected. Based on the information provided in the abstracts, articles were selected according to the following criteria: controlled clinical prospective trials and case reports. No randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical prospective trials (CCTs) were found. Articles unrelated to the topic of the planned study were excluded. The literature was reviewed, and the following journals were searched: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, Angle Orthodontist, Progress in Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics and Korean Journal of Orthodontics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The articles were subjected to risk of bias and quality assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Four articles with a total of 164 participants were selected. In all studies, differences in root length were observed after contact with the incisive canal, which was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The contact of incisor roots with the incisive canal increases the risk of resorption of these roots. IC anatomy should be considered in orthodontic diagnosis using 3D imaging. The risk of resorption complications can be reduced by appropriate planning of the movement and extent of the incisor roots (torque control) and the possible use of incisor brackets with built-in greater angulation. Registration CRD42022354125.