Perbedaan interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial antara orthopantomogram dan sefalometri posteroanterior menggunakan analisis linear vertikal dan angular: studi cross-sectional
Abstract
ABSTRAK
Pendahuluan: Interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial sangat penting dalam penegakkan diagnosis dan pembuatan rencana perawatan ortodonti. Walaupun sefalometri posteroanterior (PA) merupakan standar prosedur asimetri dentokraniofasial, namun memberi tambahan paparan radiasi bagi pasien, serta memerlukan biaya tambahan. Apabila orthopantomogram (OPG) dapat digunakan sebagai interpretasi dentokraniofasial, maka akan lebih efektif serta efisien. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perbedaan interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial antara OPG dan sefalometri PA dengan analisis linear vertikal dan angular. Metode: Interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial analisis linear vertikal dan angular menggunakan Winceph 11 dari 30 subjek penelitian didapatkan sesuai kriteria inklusi. Terdapat 5 parameter yang dianalisis, yaitu Orbitale, Condyle, Sigmoid Notch Point, Gonion, Menton. Uji McNemar digunakan untuk menguji perbedaan kedua metode. Bland-Altman plot dan Kappa digunakan untuk menguji reliabilitas antara kedua metode. Hasil: Interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial dengan parameter orbitale, condyle, dan sigmoid notch point tidak terdapat perbedaan bermakna pada pengukuran linear vertikal dan angular, namun pengukuran angular pada parameter gonion didapatkan p=0,006 dan menton didapatkan p=0,039, didapatkan berbeda bermakna (p<0,05)antara gambaran OPG dan Sefalometri PA. Nilai Kappa yang didapatkan sebagai hasil uji reliabilitas pada penelitian ini p=0,087 dengan interpretasi bahwa seluruh parameter menunjukkan kesepakatan hampir sempurna (almost perfect agreement) antara kedua metode (Kappa>0,81). Simpulan: Terdapat perbedaan interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial antara orthopantomogram dan sefalometri posteroanterior menggunakan analisis linear vertikal dan angular. OPG dapat digunakan sebagai alat bantu interpretasi awal asimetri dentokraniofasial, namun untuk penegakan interpretasi asimetri dentokraniofasial utamanya menggunakan sefalometri PA.
Kata kunci
Asimetri dentokraniofasial, orthopantomogram, sefalometri posteroanterior, interpretasi asimetri
Differences in interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry between orthopantomogram and posteroanterior cephalogram using vertical and angular linear analysis: cross sectional study
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry is crucial in establishing the orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plans. Although posteroanterior (PA) cephalometry is the standard procedure for dentocraniofacial asymmetry, it provides additional radiation exposure for patients and requires additional costs. If orthopantomogram (OPG) can be used as a dentocraniofacial interpretation, it will be more effective and efficient. Objective: This study aims to analyze the differences in dentocraniofacial asymmetry interpretation between OPG and PA cephalogram with vertical and angular linear analysis. Methods: Interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry vertical and angular linear analysis using Winceph 11 of 30 subjects were obtained according to the inclusion criteria. The parameters are Orbitale, Condyle, Sigmoid Notch Point, Gonion, and Menton. McNemar test was used to evaluate and observe the differences between the two methods. Bland-Altman plot and Kappa were used to evaluate and observe the reliability between the two methods. Results: Interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry with orbitale, condyle, and sigmoid notch point parameters presented no significant differences in vertical linear and angular measurements, but in gonion p=0,006 and menton p=0,039 parameters, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between OPG and PA cephalometry in angular analysis. The Kappa value obtained as a result of the reliability test was p=0,087 with the interpretation that all parameters showed almost perfect between the two methods (Kappa> 0.81). Conclusion: There are differences in interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry between orthopantomogram and posteroanterior cephalometry using vertical and angular analysis with a cross-sectional study. OPG can be used as an initial interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry, but PA cephalogram is mainly used to enforce the interpretation of dentocraniofacial asymmetry.
Keywords
Dentocraniofacial asymmetry, orthopantomogram, posteroanterior cephalogram, asymmetry interpretation
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Nielsen, IL. A Comprehensive diagnostic system for orthodontists- Beyond Angle’s Classification. Taiwanese Journal of Orthodontics. 2019; 31(3): 3.
Khalid A, Awaisi ZH. Linear and angular mandibular measurements: Comparison between panoramic radiography (Orthopantomogram) and lateral Cephalogram. Linear and angular mandibular measurements. Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences. 2023; 4(5): 96-98
Chia M, Naini F, Gill B. The aetiology, diagnosis, and management of mandibular asymmetry. Orthodontic Update. 2018; 1(1): 44-52.
Purbiati M, Purwanegara, MK, Linda K, Himawan LS. Prediction of mandibulofacial asymmetry using risk factor index and model of dentocraniofacial morphological pattern. 2016; 9(3): 195-201.
Kadharmestan C, Purbiati M, Anggani HS. Prevalensi asimetri fungsional pada murid SD dan SLTP Tarsisius Vireta Tangerang. Journal of Dentistry Indonesia. 2008; 15 (1): 29-35.
Marure PS, Arya S, Kiran H, Dharmesh HS. Facial attractiveness and asymmetry-A review on compherensive diagnosis and management. IJOCR. 2013; 2: 1.
Agrawal A, et al. An Evaluation of panoramic radiograph to assess mandibular asymmetry as compared to posteroanterior cephalogram. APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2016; 5(5):197.
Pedersoli L, Dalessandri D, Tonni I, Bindu M, Isola G, Oliva B, Visconti L. Facial asymmetry detected with 3D methods in orthodontics: A Systematic Review.The Open Dentsitry Journal. 2022; 1-17.
Srivastava D, et al. Facial asymmetry revisited: Part I - Diagnosis and Treatment planning. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2018; 8: 7–14.
Agrawal M, et al. Dentofacial asymmetries: Challenging diagnosis and treatment planning. Journal of International Oral Health. 2015; 7(7): 128-131.
Lee MS, et al. Assessing soft-tissue characteristics of facial asymmetry with photographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:23-31.
Kim EJ, et al. Maxillofacial characteristics affecting chin deviation between mandibular retrusion and prognathism patients. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81: 988-993.
Cheong YW, Lo LJ. Facial asymmetry: Etiology, evaluation, and management. Chang Gung Med J. 2011; 34: 341-351.
Naoumova, J., & Lindman, R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009; 31(3): 247–253.
Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Freitas MPM. Facial asymmetry: a current review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20(6): 110-25.
Mitchell L, Littlewood SJ. An Introduction to Orthodontics 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 55.
Shane J, Mc C, Mark T. Prevalence and severity of mandibular asymmetry in non‐syndromic, non‐pathological Caucasian adult. AMS Journal. 2018; 8(2): 254-258.
Hirpara N, Jain S; Hirpara VS, Punyani PR. Comparative assessment of vertical facial asymmetry using posteroanterior cephalogram and orthopantomogram. Journal of Biomedical Sciences. 2016; 6(1): 1-6.
Cassone P, Ramieri V, Vellone V, Basile E. Reconstruction of the adult hemifacial microsomia patient with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) total joint prothesis and orthognathic surgery. Case report in surg. 2018; 1-21.
Grayson BH, LaBatto FA, Kolber AB, McCarthy JG. Basilar multiplane cephalometric analysis. Am.J.Orthod. 1985; 503-517.
Perez IE, Chavez A. Cephalometric norms from posteroanterior Ricketts' cephalograms from Hispanic American Peruvian non adult patients. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2011; 24(3): 265-271.
Grummons DC, Coppello MAKVD. A frontal asymmetry analysis. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics. 1987; 21(7): 448-465.
Grummons, Duane, Ricketts, Robert. Frontal cephalometrics: Practical applications, part 1. World journal of orthodontics. 2003; 4(4): 297-316.
Grummons, Duane & Ricketts, Robert. Frontal cephalometrics: Practical applications, part 2. World Journal of Orthodontics. 2004; 5; 99-119.
Ramirez-Yanez GO, Stewart A, Franken E, Campos K. Prevalence of mandibular asymmetries in growing patients. Eur J Orthod. 2011: 1; 33(3): 236-42.
Chu EA, Farrag TY, Ishii LE, Byrne PJ. Threshold of visual perception of facial asymmetry in a facial paralysis model. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011: 13(1).
Hlatcu, et al. An evaluation of the ramus mandibular asymmetry on the panoramic radiograph. 2023. MDPI. 2023; 13(13): 1-10.
Choi KY. Analysis of facial asymmetry. Archives of craniofacial surgery. 2015; 16(1): 1-10.
Gupta S, Jain S. Orthopantomographic Analysis for assessment of mandibular asymmetry. The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2012; 46(1): 33-37
Dahlan, Sopiyudin. Besar Sampel dan Cara Pengambilan Sampel dalam Penelitian Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. Jakarta: Salemba Medika. 2010. p.50-51.
Haraguchi S. Asymmetry of the face in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(3): 421-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/jkg.v37i1.58720
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Padjadjaran
INDEXING & PARTNERSHIP
Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Padjadjaran dilisensikan di bawah Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License