J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cousley, R. R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kindelan, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cousley, R. R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kindelan, J. D.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 30, No. 2, 149-154, June 2003
© 2003 British Orthodontic Society

Scientific Section

The validity of computerized orthognathic predictions

R. R. J. Cousley, E. Grant and J. D. Kindelan

York District Hospital, York, UK

Richard Cousley, Orthodontic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE3 6DA, UK. Email: Richard.Cousley{at}pbh-tr.nhs.uk

Objective: utilizing OPALTM cephalometric prediction software.

Design: A retrospective investigation involving the random selection of Class II orthognathic patients from surgical records.

Subjects: These 25 cases had undergone treatment aimed at producing Class I incisors. This involved fixed orthodontic appliances and a mandibular advancement osteotomy with rigid internal fixation.

Methods: Lateral cephalographs from three key stages were digitized and processed using the OPAL software. Pre-treatment predictions were generated and compared with the actual clinical changes.

Results: Prediction of some of the principal OPAL variables (SNA, ANB, LAFH%, OJ, OB) was reasonably accurate in terms of mean values. However, there were large individual variations for most measurements, and prediction of Wits, MxP/MnP, LAFH, and LPFH was prone to systematic error. In particular, there was a tendency towards over-prediction of the surgically-induced backward mandibular rotation.

Conclusion: In lieu of further validation caution should be exercised with the interpretation of individual OPAL predictions, especially vertical skeletal changes, and an explanation given to patients that orthognathic predictions are based on generalizations.

Key words: Class II, computerized prediction, OPAL, orthognathic surgery






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 British Orthodontic Society.