Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.5.331

Diagnostic methods for assessing maxillary skeletal and dental transverse deficiencies: A systematic review  

Sawchuk, Dena (Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta)
Currie, Kris (Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta)
Vich, Manuel Lagravere (Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta)
Palomo, Juan Martin (Department of Orthodontics, Case Western University)
Flores-Mir, Carlos (Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.46, no.5, 2016 , pp. 331-342 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the diagnostic tools available for assessing maxillary transverse deficiencies. Methods: An electronic search of three databases was performed from their date of establishment to April 2015, with manual searching of reference lists of relevant articles. Articles were considered for inclusion if they reported the accuracy or reliability of a diagnostic method or evaluation technique for maxillary transverse dimensions in mixed or permanent dentitions. Risk of bias was assessed in the included articles, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool-2. Results: Nine articles were selected. The studies were heterogeneous, with moderate to low methodological quality, and all had a high risk of bias. Four suggested that the use of arch width prediction indices with dental cast measurements is unreliable for use in diagnosis. Frontal cephalograms derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were reportedly more reliable for assessing intermaxillary transverse discrepancies than posteroanterior cephalograms. Two studies proposed new three-dimensional transverse analyses with CBCT images that were reportedly reliable, but have not been validated for clinical sensitivity or specificity. No studies reported sensitivity, specificity, positive or negative predictive values or likelihood ratios, or ROC curves of the methods for the diagnosis of transverse deficiencies. Conclusions: Current evidence does not enable solid conclusions to be drawn, owing to a lack of reliable high quality diagnostic studies evaluating maxillary transverse deficiencies. CBCT images are reportedly more reliable for diagnosis, but further validation is required to confirm CBCT's accuracy and diagnostic superiority.
Keywords
Maxillary transverse deficiency; Diagnosis; Cone-beam computed tomography; Systematic review;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Mitchell L, Carter NE, Doubleday B. An introduction to orthodontics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.
2 Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Mosby; 2012.
3 Timms DJ. The dawn of rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 1999;69:247-50.
4 Bishara SE, Staley RN. Maxillary expansion: clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:3-14.   DOI
5 Lagravere MO, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Long-term skeletal changes with rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1046-52.
6 Proffit WR, Sarver DM, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
7 Suri L, Taneja P. Surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion: a literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:290-302.   DOI
8 Betts NJ, Vanarsdall RL, Barber HD, Higgins-Barber K, Fonseca RJ. Diagnosis and treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1995;10:75-96.
9 Malkoc S, Sari Z, Usumez S, Koyuturk AE. The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:315-21.   DOI
10 Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Caltabiano M. Landmark identification error in posteroanterior cephalometric radiography. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008;78:761-5.   DOI
11 Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1994;64:447-54.
12 Nur M, Kayipmaz S, Bayram M, Celikoglu M, Kilkis D, Sezgin OS. Conventional frontal radiographs compared with frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012;82:579-84.   DOI
13 Palomo JM, Valiathan M, Hans MGJ. 3D orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Kapila SD, ed. Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics : Indications, insights, and innovations. Ames, IA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2014. p. 221.
14 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123-30.   DOI
15 Tai B, Goonewardene MS, Murray K, Koong B, Islam SM. The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice. Aust Orthod J 2014;30:132-42.
16 O'Connor D, Green S, Higgins JPT. Part 2: General methods for Cochrane reviews. Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, ver. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_5/5_defining_the_review_question_and_developing_criteria_for.htm
17 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.   DOI
18 Cheung G, Goonewardene MS, Islam SM, Murray K, Koong B. The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis by traditional PA cephalometry compared with cone-beam computed tomography. Aust Orthod J 2013;29:86-95.
19 Dalidjan M, Sampson W, Townsend G. Prediction of dental arch development: an assessment of Pont's Index in three human populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:465-75.   DOI
20 Lee KM, Hwang HS, Cho JH. Comparison of transverse analysis between posteroanterior cephalogram and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2014;84:715-9.   DOI
21 Nimkarn Y, Miles PG, O'Reilly MT, Weyant RJ. The validity of maxillary expansion indices. Angle Orthod 1995;65:321-6.
22 de Oliveira MA Jr, Pereira MD, Hino CT, Campaner AB, Scanavini MA, Ferreira LM. Prediction of transverse maxillary dimension using orthodontic models. J Craniofac Surg 2008;19:1465-71.   DOI
23 Rastegar-Lari T, Al-Azemi R, Thalib L, Artun J. Dental arch dimensions of adolescent Kuwaitis with untreated ideal occlusion: variation and validity of proposed expansion indexes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:635-44.   DOI
24 Thu KM, Winn T, Abdullah N, Jayasinghe JA, Chandima GL. The maxillary arch and its relationship to cephalometric landmarks of selected malay ethnic group. Malays J Med Sci 2005;12:29-38.
25 Miner RM, Al Qabandi S, Rigali PH, Will LA. Conebeam computed tomography transverse analysis. Part I: Normative data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:300-7.   DOI
26 Podesser B, Williams S, Bantleon HP, Imhof H. Quantitation of transverse maxillary dimensions using computed tomography: a methodological and reproducibility study. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:209-15.   DOI
27 Vanarsdall RL Jr. Transverse dimension and long-term stability. Semin Orthod 1999;5:171-80.   DOI
28 Betts NJ, Lisenby WC. Normal adult transverse jaw values obtained using standardized posteroanterior cephalometrics. J Dent Res 1994;73:298. abstr.
29 Crosby DR, Jacobs JD, Bell WH. Special adjunctive considerations 1. transverse (horizontal) maxillary deficiency. In: Bell WH, ed. Modern practice in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery. 3th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1992. p. 2403-30.
30 Alvaran N, Roldan SI, Buschang PH. Maxillary and mandibular arch widths of Colombians. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:649-56.   DOI
31 Pont A. Der zahn-index in der orthodontie. Zeitschrifi fur Zahnarztliche Orthopaedie 1909;3:306-21.
32 Schwarz AM, Gratzinger M. Removable orthodontic appliances. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1966. p. 64.
33 Howe RP, McNamara JA Jr, O'Connor KA. An examination of dental crowding and its relationship to tooth size and arch dimension. Am J Orthod 1983;83:363-73.   DOI
34 Lagravere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:112-6.   DOI
35 Ricketts RM, Roth RH, Chaconas SJ, Schulhof RJ, Engel GA. Orthodontic diagnosis and planning. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain Data Systems; 1982.
36 Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Effect of head orientation on posterior anterior cephalometric landmark identification. Angle Orthod 1996;66:51-60.
37 Thurow RC. Cephalometric methods in research and private practice. Angle Orthod 1951;21:104-16.
38 Hans MG, Valiathan M, Palomo JM. Cone beam computed tomography: A link with the past, a promise for the future. Semin Orthod 2011;17:81-7.   DOI
39 Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291-4.   DOI
40 Cardoso JR, Pereira LM, Iversen MD, Ramos AL. What is gold standard and what is ground truth? Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19:27-30.
41 Pretty IA, Maupome G. A closer look at diagnosis in clinical dental practice: part 1. Reliability, validity, specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic procedures. J Can Dent Assoc 2004;70:251-5.
42 Streit LM. CWRU's transverse analysis developing norms [master's thesis]. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University; 2012.