Aims and objectives: This research aimed to determine the predictability and variability of the Yen angle and Mount Vernon Index (MVI) in relation to the other four sagittal discrepancy parameters, as well as to evaluate and explain any correlations that exist. The Lateral Cephalograms of 100 Class I Indian participants aged 17–24 years were recorded. The lateral cephalograms were traced for six distinct AP characteristics, including ANB, Wits appraisal, facial convexity, and beta angle, Yen angle, and MVI. The gathered data were evaluated statistically using S.P.S.S. version 10. To determine the difference between males and females, an independent “t” test was used. The coefficient of variability and correlation methods were used to determine the correctness of the Yen angle and MVI, as well as the association between the variables.
Results: The results of this study indicate that the most predictable and highly dependable parameter was the Yen angle (CV = 5.63), followed by the beta angle (5.63), the MVI (CV = 13.6), the ANB, Rickett's analysis, and Wit's analysis. Throughout all five analyses, the most statistically significant positive association between the MVI and the BETA angle was determined.
Conclusion: The derived inferences from the study included the high reliability of the yen angle for assessing the AP skeletal patterns of a patient, followed by the beta angle and MVI.
Neela P, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the yen angle. WJO 2009;10(2):147–151.
Joseph HN, et al. A simple method of assessing anteroposterior skeletal pattern from a lateral cephalogram. J Clin Orthod 2009;07:449–452.
Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960;46(10):721–735. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7.
Jacobson A. The Wits appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67(2):125–138. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2.
Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1960;20:37–46.
Baik CY, Ververeidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies. “The Beta angle. Am J Orthod 2004;126(1):100–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026.
Sleeva RN. A modified approach for obtaining cephalograms in natural head position. J Clin Orthod 2001;28(1):25–28. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/28.1.25.
Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Antero posterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1978;73(6):619–633. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90223-3.
Jarvinen S. Comparison of two angular and two linear measurements used to establish sagittal apical base relationship. Eur J Orthod 1981;3(2):131–134. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/3.2.131.
Bishara SE, Fahl JA, Peterson LC. Longitudinal changes in the ANB angle and “Wits” appraisal: “clinical implications”. Am J Orthod 1983;1(2):133–139. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90177-x.
Chang HP. Assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. Am J Orthod 1987;92(2):117–122. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90366-0.
Kataria GK, Maheshwari S. An appraisal of various cephalometric parameters in the assessment of sagittal relationship between the maxilla and mandible. J Ind Orthod Soc 1999;32:83–90.
Nanda RS, Hussel W. Analysis of factors effecting angle ANB. Am J Orthod 1984;85(5):411–423. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90162-3.
Lux CJ, Burden D, Conradt C, et al. Age related changes in sagittal relationship between the maxilla and mandible. Eur J Orthod 2005;27(6):568–578. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji061.
Marihno DS. Influence of occlusal plane inclination on ANB and Wits assessments of anteroposterior jaw relationships. Am J Orthod 2006;129(5):641–648. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.025.
Trivedi K, et al. Predictability of beta angle and appraisal of various cephalometric parameters in the assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible in angle's class I malocclusion.”. JPAHER 2009;1(2):18–21.
