Volume 24, Number 2 (23 2011)                   jdm 2011, 24(2): 87-93 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mojtahedzadeh F, Alizadeh S. Comparison of anthropometric measurements as substitutes for McNamara’s cephalometric maxillomandibular unit measurements. jdm. 2011; 24 (2) :87-93
URL: http://jdm.tums.ac.ir/article-1-69-en.html

Abstract:   (40603 Views)

Background and Aims: Cephalometric measurements cannot be performed for screening purposes, therefore orthodontists usually have to use either photographic or anthropometric measurements in such occasions. Finding a valid and reliable alternative could be of great value. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between McNamara's cephalometric unit difference and a proposed soft tissue equivalent.
Materials and Methods: An anthropometric ruler was redesigned and used in this study. Soft tissue measurements were performed on 36 randomly selected specimens by two investigators. The soft tissue measurements included external auditory meatus to subnasale (Ext-Sn), external auditory meatus to soft tissue pogonion (Ext-Pog), and the difference between them (UDMA´). These measurements were considered as equivalents to cephalometric indices in McNamara's anteroposterior measurements, including maxillary (Co-A) and mandibular (Co-Gn) unit length and their difference (UDMA), respectively.
Results: All soft tissue variables had an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) above 0.90. There was a high and significant correlation between cephalometric and anthropometric measurements (P<0.01). The ICC between (Ext-Sn) and (Co-A) was 0.890, 0.869 between (Ext-Pog) and (Co-Gn), and 0.819 between UDMA´ and UDMA.
Conclusion: The proposed anthropometric method showed a good correlation with cephalometric equivalents and the results show that this method could be used for screening purposes, especially when a low-cost, non-invasive method is required. However it cannot be considered as a substitute for cephalometry in diagnostic and treatment purposes.

Full-Text [PDF 799 kb]   (824 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: general
Received: 2010/10/12 | Accepted: 2011/05/26 | Published: 2013/09/21

Add your comments about this article : Your username or email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author


© 2017 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Dental Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb