Advertisement

Comparison of three methods to assess individual skeletal maturity

  • E. Pasciuti
  • L. FranchiEmail author
  • T. Baccetti
  • S. Milani
  • G. Farronato
Original article

Abstract

Background

The knowledge of facial growth and development is fundamental to determine the optimal timing for different treatment procedures in the growing patient.

Aim

To analyze the reproducibility of three methods in assessing individual skeletal maturity, and to evaluate any degree of concordance among them.

Design

In all, 100 growing subjects were enrolled to test three methods: the hand-wrist, cervical vertebral maturation (CVM), and medial phalanges of the third finger method (MP3). Four operators determined the skeletal maturity of the subjects to evaluate the reproducibility of each method. After 30 days the operators repeated the analysis to assess the repeatability of each method. Finally, one operator examined all subjects’ radiographs to detect any concordance among the three methods.

Results

The weighted kappa values for inter-operator variability were 0.94, 0.91, and 0.90, for the WRI, CVM, and MP3 methods, respectively. The weighted kappa values for intra-operator variability were 0.92, 0.91, and 0.92, for the WRI, CVM, and MP3 methods, respectively.

Conclusion

The three methods revealed a high degree of repeatability and reproducibility. Complete agreement among the three methods was observed in 70% of the analyzed samples. The CVM method has the advantage of not necessitating an additional radiograph. The MP3 method is a simple and practical alternative as it requires only a standard dental x-ray device.

Keywords

Interceptive orthodontics Skeletal maturity Growth and development 

Vergleich dreier Methoden zur Beurteilung der individuellen Skelettreife

Zusammenfassung

Zielstellung

Bestimmung der Reproduzierbarkeit von drei Methoden zur Bestimmung der individuellen skeletalen Reife und möglicher Übereinstimmungen.

Material und Methoden

Das Studienkollektiv bestand aus 100 Probanden. Die verwendeten Methoden waren die Handröntgenaufnahme, die Methode zur Bestimmung der skeletalen Reife der Halswirbel (CVM-Methode) und die Methode zur Bestimmung der medialen Phalanx des Mittelfingers (MP3). Vier Untersucher bestimmten die skeletale Reife, um die Reproduzierbarkeit jeder Methode zu evaluieren. Nach 30 Tagen wiederholten die Untersucher die Analyse, um die Reproduzierbarkeit jeder Methode festzustellen. Schließlich analysierte ein Untersucher die Röntgenaufnahmen aller Probanden, um mögliche Übereinstimmungen zwischen den drei Methoden festzustellen.

Ergebnisse

Alle Methoden zeigten eine hohen Grad an Reproduzierbarkeit. Eine vollständige Übereinstimmung zwischen den drei Methoden wurde bei einer hohen Prozentzahl des Untersuchungsgutes (ungefähr 70%) gefunden.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die CVM-Methode hat den Vorteil, dass sie eine zusätzliche Röntgenaufnahme vermeidet. Die MP3-Methode ist eine einfache und praktische Alternative, da sie nur ein Dentalröntgengerät erfordert, das in jeder Zahnarztpraxis vorhanden ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Interzeptive Kieferorthopädie Skelettreife Wachstum und Entwicklung 

Notes

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel-Kader HM (1998) The reliability of dental x-ray film in assessment of MP3 stages of the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod 114:427–429Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alkhal HA, Wong RWK, Rabie ABM (2008) Correlation between chronological age, cervical vertebral maturation and Fishman’s skeletal maturity indicators in Southern Chinese. Angle Orthod 78:591–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr (2005) The cervical vertebral maturation method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 11:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L et al (2006) The diagnostic performance of chronologic age in the assessment of skeletal maturity. Prog Orthod 7:176–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bala M, Pathak A, Jain RL (2010) Assessment of skeletal age using MP3 and hand-wrist radiographs and its correlation with dental and chronological ages in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 28:95–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjork A, Helm S (1967) Prediction of the age of maximum puberal growth in body height. Angle Orthod 37:134–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chertkow S (1980) Tooth mineralization as an indicator of the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod 77:79–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demirjian A, Buschang PH, Tanguay R, Patterson DK (1985) Interrelationships among measures of somatic skeletal, dental, and sexual maturity. Am J Orthod 88:433–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fishman L (2000) Maturational development and facial form relative to treatment timing. In: Subtenly J (ed) Early orthodontic treatment. Quintessence, Chicago, Ill, pp 265–285Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flores-Mir C, Burgess CA, Champney M et al (2006) Correlation of skeletal maturation stages determined by cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist evaluations. Angle Orthod 76:1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gandini P, Mancini M, Andreani F (2006) A comparison of hand-wrist bone and cervical vertebral analyses in measuring skeletal maturation. Angle Orthod 76:984–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giannì E (1986) La nuova ortognatodonzia. Piccin, Padova, 1:539–551Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grave K, Townsend G (2003) Cervical vertebral maturation as a predictor of the adolescent growth spurt. Aust Orthod J 19:25–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greulich W, Pyle S (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of hand and wrist. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hagg U, Taranger J (1980) Menarche and voice changes as indicators of the pubertal growth spurt. Acta Odontol Scand 38:179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagg U, Taranger J (1980) Skeletal stages of the hand and wrist as indicators of the pubertal growth spurt. Acta Odontol Scand 38:187–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassel B, Farman AG (1995) Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:58–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunter CJ (1966) The correlation of facial growth with body height and skeletal maturation at adolescence. Angle Orthod 36:44–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Biren S, Arun T (1999) Comparison between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Clin Pediatr Dent 24:47–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madhu S, Hegde AM, Munshi AK (2003) The developmental stages of the middle phalanx of the third finger (MP3): a sole indicator in assessing the skeletal maturity? J Clin Pediatr Dent 27:149–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nanda RS (1955) The rates of growth of several facial components measured from serial cephalometric roentgenograms. Am J Orthod 41:658–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nestman TS, Marshall SD, Qian F et al (2011) Cervical vertebrae maturation method morphologic criteria: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:182–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Reilly M, Yanniello GJ (1988) Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae: a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod 58:179–184Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ozer T, Kama JD, Ozer SY (2006) A pratical method for determining pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:131.e1–131.e6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rajagopal R, Kansal S (2002) A comparison of modified MP3 stages and the cervical vertebrae as growth indicators. J Clin Orthod 36:398–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    San Roman P, Palma JC, Oteo D, Nevado E (2002) Skeletal maturation determined by cervical vertebrae development. Eur J Orthod 24:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Santiago RC, Miranda Costa LF de, Vitral RW et al (2012) Cervical vertebral maturation as a biologic indicator of skeletal maturity. Angle Orthod 82:1123–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Serinelli S, Panetta V, Pasqualetti P, Marchetti D (2011) Accuracy of three age determination X-ray methods on the left hand-wrist: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Leg Med (Tokyo) 13:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soegiharto BM, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ (2008) Discriminatory ability of the skeletal maturation index and the cervical vertebrae maturation index in detecting peak pubertal growth in Indonesian and white subjects with receiver operating characteristics analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH (1975) Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW2 Method). Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Basciftci FA, Sari Z (2006) Chronologic age and skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist: is there a relationship? Am J Orthod 130:622–628Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Varshosaz M, Ehsani S, Nouri M, Tavakoli MA (2012) Bone age estimation by cervical vertebral dimensions in lateral cephalometry. Prog Orthod 13:126–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Pasciuti
    • 1
  • L. Franchi
    • 2
    Email author
  • T. Baccetti
    • 3
  • S. Milani
    • 4
  • G. Farronato
    • 5
  1. 1.Private practiceMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of OrthodonticsUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of StatisticsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  5. 5.Department of OrthodonticsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations