How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?
How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.09.021
复制
发表时间：
2011-02-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
McKnight, Mary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Devereux, Louis;Moles, David;McKnight, Mary
前言：本研究的目的是调查头颅侧位X线片是否会影响正畸治疗计划。它的目的是比较三组正畸医生改变治疗计划的几率，他们在两种情况下计划治疗六例，T1和T2，提供不同的头影测量侧位片。方法：将6例正畸患者的记录复制到光盘上，发送给参加活动的199名正畸医生。正畸医生被分成A、B和C三组。A组的临床医生在T1和T2计划会议上获得除头颅侧位X线片外的所有记录。B组临床医生在T1时获得除头颅侧位X线片外的所有记录，在T2时获得所有记录，包括头颅侧位X线片和描记。C组的临床医生接受所有的记录，包括头颅侧位X线片和T1和T2时的轨迹。所有参与者在T1时被发送记录；那些返回治疗计划问卷的人在T2时被发送第二组记录和问卷，8周后。参与的邀请函分发给了英国正畸学会的所有专业正畸医生(n=950)。其中，199名正畸医生同意参加，应答率为21%。在同意参与的199人中，149人完成了第一份治疗计划问卷(T1)，回复率为75%。在149名完成调查问卷的人中，114人完成了第二份治疗计划问卷(T2)，回复率为77%。结果：头颅侧位X线片的可获得性及其追踪对任何治疗计划的决定都没有显著的影响，除了对于所有6名患者在B组和C组之间以及对于4名患者在B组和C组之间以及B组和A组之间是否拔牙的决定(在II类骨骼基托上的I类切牙关系)。结论：对于这6名患者的大多数治疗计划决定，头颅侧位X线片的可用性及其追踪对治疗决定没有显著影响。对于1例患者，当提供头颅侧位X线片时，拔牙决定有显著的变化。这突显了在治疗计划中进行头影测量侧位片的必要性的不确定性。鼓励在这一领域进行进一步研究，以解决这一两极分化问题。(Am J Orthod DentofaceOrthop 2011；139：E175-E181)
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether lateral cephalometric radiographs influence orthodontic treatment planning. It aimed to compare the odds of a change in treatment plan in three groups of orthodontists who treatment planned six cases on two occasions, T1 and T2, with the provision of a lateral cephalometric radiograph being varied. Methods: The records of 6 orthodontic patients were copied onto compact discs and sent to the 199 participating orthodontists. The orthodontists were allocated to 3 groups, A, B, and C. Clinicians in group A were given all records except the lateral cephalometric radiographs at the T1 and T2 planning sessions. Clinicians in group B were given all records except the lateral cephalometric radiograph at T1 and all records including the lateral cephalometric radiograph and tracing at T2. Clinicians in group C were given all records including the lateral cephalometric radiographs and tracings at T1 and T2. All participants were sent records at T1; those who returned the treatment-planning questionnaire were sent the second set of records and questionnaire at T2, 8 weeks later. Invitations to participate were distributed to all specialist orthodontists who were members of the British Orthodontic Society (n = 950). Of these, 199 orthodontists agreed to take part, a response rate of 21%. Of the 199 who agreed to participate, 149 completed the first treatment-planning questionnaire (T1), for a response rate of 75%. Of the 149 who completed that questionaire, 114 completed the second treatment-planning questionnaire (T2), for a 77% response rate. Results: The availability of a lateral cephalometric radiograph and its tracing did not make a significant difference to any treatment-planning decisions, with the exception of the decision to extract or not between groups B and C for all 6 patients combined, and between groups B and C and groups B and A for patient 4 (Class I incisor relationship on a Class II skeletal base). Conclusions: For most treatment-planning decisions in these 6 patients, the availability of a lateral cephalometric radiograph and its tracing did not make a significant difference to the treatment decisions. For 1 patient, there was a significant change in the extraction decision when a lateral cephalometric radiograph was provided. This highlights the uncertainty surrounding the necessity for lateral cephalometric radiographs in treatment planning. Further research in this area is encouraged to resolve this dichotomy. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e175-e181)