Accuracy of Gonial Angle Measurements Using Panoramic Imaging versus Lateral Cephalograms in Adults with Different Mandibular Divergence Patterns

References

• Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;103(4):299–312. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rischen RJ, Breuning KH, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Glogauer M. Records needed for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e74186. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auconi P, Caldarelli G, Scala A, Ierardo G, Polimeni A. A network approach to orthodontic diagnosis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(4):189–197. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01523.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akcam MO, Altiok T, Ozdiler E. Panoramic radiographs: a tool for investigating skeletal pattern. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;123(2):175–181. doi:10.1067/mod.2003.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadat-Khonsari R, Fenske C, Behfar L, Bauss O. Panoramic radiography: effects of head alignment on the vertical dimension of the mandibular ramus and condyle region. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(2):164–169. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjq175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva MB, Sant’Anna EF. The evolution of cephalometric diagnosis in orthodontics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(3):63–71. doi:10.1590/S2176-94512013000300011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halazonetis DJ. Morphometrics for cephalometric diagnosis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;125(5):571–581. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upadhyay RB, Upadhyay J, Agrawal P, Rao NN. Analysis of gonial angle in relation to age, gender, and dentition status by radiological and anthropometric methods. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2012;4(1):29. doi:10.4103/0975-1475.99160
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rubika J, Felicita AS, Sivambiga V. Gonial angle as an indicator for the prediction of growth pattern. World J Dent. 2017;6(3):161–163. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1334
   Google Scholar
• Xie QF, Ainamo A. Correlation of gonial angle size with cortical thickness, height of the mandibular residual body, and duration of edentulism. J Prosth Dent. 2004;91(5):477–482. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.02.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panneerselvam E, Prasad PJ, Balasubramaniam S, Somasundaram S, Raja KV, Srinivasan D. The influence of the mandibular gonial angle on the incidence of mandibular angle fracture—A radiomorphometric study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(1):153–159. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2016.08.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya AB. A digital method of measuring the gonial angle on radiographs for forensic age estimation. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2017;11:18–23. doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2017.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Nanda SK. Growth patterns in subjects with long and short faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98(3):247–258. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81602-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Dawoody AD. Does high gonial angle increases the risk of mandibular angle fracture? A digital orthopantomographic study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2022;14(12):e994–e999. doi:10.4317/jced.60003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yazdanian M, Karami S, Tahmasebi E, et al. Dental Radiographic/Digital Radiography Technology along with Biological Agents in Human Identification. Scanning. 2022;18:5265912.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. J Orthod. 2002;29(1):66–69. doi:10.1093/ortho/29.1.66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mahto RK, Kafle D, Giri A, Luintel S, Karki A. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):132. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung K, Montalvao C, Tanaka R, et al. The use and performance of artificial intelligence applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(1):107. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20190107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alqahtani H. Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;121(1):53–57. doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2019.04.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Uni Med Sci. 2021;17(1):57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer-Brandies H, Fischer-Brandies E, Dielert E. The mandibular angle in the orthopantomogram. Der Radiologe. 1984;24(12):547–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azeez SM, Surji FF, Kadir SO, et al. Accuracy and Reliability of WebCeph Digital Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Conventional Cephalometric Analysis. World J Dent. 2023;14(8):727–732. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2285
   Google Scholar
• Tsolakis IA, Gizani S, Panayi N, Antonopoulos G, Tsolakis AI. Three-dimensional printing technology in orthodontics for dental models: a systematic review. Children (Basel). 2022;9(8):1106–1121. doi:10.3390/children9081106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulatova G, Kusnoto B, Grace V, Tsay TP, Avenetti DM, Sanchez FJC. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(Suppl 2):37–42. doi:10.1111/ocr.12542
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, et al. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(5):387–392. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(3):241–246. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar