Objective This study aimed to compare measurements from panoramic, lateral cephalometric, and posteroanterior radiographs between individuals with mandibular second molar impaction and control subjects, and to assess the relationships among these variables. Materials and Methods With ethical approval from the Bezmialem Vakıf University Non-Interventional Ethics Committee (Decision No: 2024/233), this retrospective study included 43 patients selected from 1800 records based on inclusion criteria. Power analysis determined a minimum of 21 participants per group.All patients’ panoramic, lateral cephalometric, and posteroanterior radiographs were evaluated using WebCeph and Measure X software. Statistical tests included Shapiro-Wilk, t-test, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman correlation (p0.05). Results In the impaction group, 47.4% were male and 52.6% female, with a mean age of 18.37±3.52. In the control group, 45.8% were male and 54.2% female, with a mean age of 22. No significant differences were found in lateral cephalometric measurements (p>0.05). However, posteroanterior images showed significant differences in Ag and Me-Ag distances (p0.05). In panoramic analyses, significant differences were observed in IGO-Md8, IGO-Md7, and Md7-Md8 angles (p0.05). No statistically significant relationship was observed between the posteroanterior and panoramic measurements in the control group (p > 0.05). Conclusion Lateral cephalometric analysis alone may be insufficient in evaluating mandibular second molar impaction. Local morphological measurements and transverse plane evaluations provide more diagnostic insight. Supporting Treatment Planning With Posteroanterior and Panoramic Radiographs is Therefore Essential

Külçü A., Kaya N., Arslan E. D.

XIX. Uluslararası Türk Ortodonti Derneği Sempozyumu, İstanbul, Turkey, 1 - 04 November 2025, (Summary Text)

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Summary Text
  • City: İstanbul
  • Country: Turkey
  • Bezmialem Vakıf University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy and reliability of the PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index, which is used to evaluate treatment outcomes after orthodontic therapy, using different measurement methods.

Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the Non-Interventional Ethics Committee of xxxx University. Records of patients who completed orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics, xxxx University, were retrospectively analyzed. The PAR index, which provides an objective evaluation of treatment quality, was assessed based on specific parameters. These parameters were measured using five different methods: (1) clinical examination, (2) conventional plaster models, (3) digital models obtained by 3Shape scanning of plaster casts, (4) intraoral digital scanning with the Itero device, and (5) intraoral photographs. Data distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, with the significance level set at p < 0.05.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups for the parameters of overjet, overbite, sagittal relationships of posterior teeth, crossbite, crowding, and diastema (p > 0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding the centreline parameter (p = 0.007; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Centreline parameter showed statistically significant differences depending on the measurement method used. Therefore, careful selection of the assessment method at the end of treatment is essential to ensure the reliability of the results.

Amaç

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortodontik tedavi sonrası, tedavi bitiminin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) indeksinin farklı ölçüm yöntemleri ile uygulanabilirlik ve güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırmalısıdır.

Gereç ve Yöntem

Bu çalışma xxxx Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında xxxx Üniversitesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı’nda tedavisi tamamlanmış hastalara ait kayıtlar değerlendirilmiştir. PAR indeksi, tedavi kalitesinin objektif ölçümünü sağlayan parametreler üzerinden analiz edilmiştir. Bu parametrelere ilişkin ölçümler beş farklı yöntemle gerçekleştirilmiştir: (1) Klinik muayene, (2) Geleneksel alçı modeller, (3) Alçı modellerin 3Shape tarayıcı ile elde edilen dijital versiyonları, (4) Itero cihazı ile intraoral dijital tarama ve (5) İntraoral fotoğraflar. Verilerin dağılımı Shapiro-Wilk testiyle incelenmiş, istatistiksel analizlerde Kruskal Wallis testi kullanılmıştır, anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir.

Bulgular

Farklı ölçüm yöntemleri arasında yapılan karşılaştırmalarda, overjet, overbite, posterior dişlerin sagittal ilişkisi, çapraz kapanış, çapraşıklık ve diastema parametreleri açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır (p> 0,05). Ancak, orta hat sapması bakımından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur (p = 0,007; p <0,05).

Sonuç

Orta hat sapması, farklı ölçüm yöntemlerine göre anlamlı farklılıklar göstermiştir. Bu nedenle özellikle tedavi bitiminde yapılan değerlendirmelerde kullanılan yöntemin doğru seçilmesi sonuçların güvenilirliği açısından oldukça önemlidir.