开合患者的鉴别诊断.pdfVIP

Original Article Inconsistencies in the Differential Diagnosis of Open Bite a b c d Zuleyha Mirzen Arat ; Mehmet Okan Akcam ; Elc¸in Esenlik ; F. Emel Arat ABSTRACT Objective: To examine inconsistencies in the differential diagnosis of open bite. Materials and Methods: Using visual judgments, a total of 77 anterior open-bite cases in the postpubertal growth period were grouped as either morphogenetic, functional, or combination. The same sample was also grouped as either hyperdivergent, normodivergent, or hypodivergent using mandibular-plane angle and conventional cephalometry. Kappa analysis was used to test the agreement between the 2 methods of evaluation, and 2 tests were used to analyze the distribution of cephalometrically grouped hyperdivergent, normodivergent, and hypodivergent cas- es among the visually assessed morphogenetic, functional and combination groups and vice ver- sa. A score of 0.343 indicated a weak agreement between visual judgment and cephalometric methods of evaluation (P .001). Results: Despite the expectation that cases evaluated as hyperdivergent using cephalometry would be visually evaluated as morphogenetic, more than half of the cases assessed as hyper- divergent were in fact classified as functional. Conclusions: These findings highlight the inadequacy of relying solely on cephalometric evalu- ation to classify open bite. KEY WORDS: Differential; Diagnosis; Open bite INTRODUCTION criterion for classifying open-bit