Agreement between orthodontists in the diagnosis of sagittal facial patterns

Resumo

The cephalometric analysis has assisted orthodontics in describing face features in terms of numbers/angles, but these results are not always consistent with ideal individual patterns. Some orthodontists have made use of subjective analysis as an auxiliary method in the diagnosis; however, the consistency of the reproducibility of these methods has been questioned. Hence, this study aimed to verify whether the diagnosis of sagittal facial patterns can be accomplished with a reliable reproduction. This is an analytical observational study including an initial sample of 120 teleradiographs and 120 photographs in lateral norm of patients from the Graduate Program in Dentistry, Faculty of Health of the Methodist University of São Paulo. First, a previously calibrated examiner separated the photographs into three Sagittal Facial Patterns (Pattern I, II and III). Thus, it was obtained three groups comprising 45 photographs for the Pattern I; 45 photographs for the Pattern II and 30 photographs for the Pattern III. After this initial selection, the cephalometric analysis of 120 teleradiographs was performed using measurements of ANB and SN-GoGn angles. From this second analysis, it was selected only the photographs in which the result of subjective analysis matched the cephalometric analysis, totalizing a final sample size of 52 photographs. These 52 photographs were separated and set on an album to be reassessed by 19 orthodontists, in order to observe or not an agreement between the facial patterns among professionals. The kappa test analyzed the level of agreement of 19 professionals in relation to the cephalometric reference. The degree of agreement between professional judgment and cephalometry was found to be 73.08%, and the result of the kappa test was 0.59 (moderate agreement). Taken together, the accuracy in the diagnosis of facial pattern by means of subjective facial analysis demonstrates that the subjective method is reliable for clinical use.