Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of the predictive impact of cephalometric variables

Logistic regression and ROC curves

Beurteilung der prädiktiven Wertigkeit kephalometrischer Variablen

Logistische Regressionen und ROC-Kurven

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the context of orthodontic treatment planning, the decisions to be made are often affected by the assumption of future growth patterns, especially the direction of mandibular rotation. Using longitudinally available lateral cephalograms from the Belfast Growth Study, it was examined whether, on the basis of the cephalometric variables at the ages of 7, 9 and 11, the direction of mandibular rotation can be predicted in the respective subsequent 4-year intervals. For statistical analysis of this problem, logistic regression models were applied to describe and quantify the influence of potential explanatory variables on the direction of mandibular rotation (dependent variable). In addition, graphical methods taken from the field of medical diagnostics were applied for prediction and for determination of predictive accuracy.

The use of logistic regression models revealed no relations between the explanatory variables SN-MeGo and S-Go/N-Me and the subsequent mandibular growth pattern. Only the upper and lower parts of the gonial angle showed a minor predictive impact. A graphical evaluation of their prognostic impact by means of “receiver operating characteristics” (ROC) curves, complemented by determination of the areas under the curves, confirmed the relations discovered. Nevertheless the prognostic limits of the lateral cephalogram emerged clearly for all variables investigated.

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen der kieferorthopädischen Behandlungsplanung werden häufig die zu treffenden therapeutischen Entscheidungen durch die Annahme des künftigen Wachstumsverlaufs, insbesondere der Richtung der Unterkieferrotation, beeinflußt. Anhand longitudinal verfügbarer Fernröntgenseitenbilder der Belfast Growth Study wurde untersucht, ob sich mit Hilfe von kephalometrischen Variablen im Alter von 7, 9 und 11 Jahren die Richtung der Unterkieferrotation im jeweils nachfolgenden 4-Jahres-Intervall vorhersagen läßt. Zur statistischen Bearbeitung dieser Fragestellung wurden logistische Regressionsmodelle angewendet, mit deren Hilfe der Einfluß möglicher Prädiktoren auf die Richtung der Wachstumsrotation beschrieben und quantifiziert wurde. Darüber hinaus wurden zur Vorhersage und zur Bestimmung der Zuverlässigkeit der Prognose graphische Methoden aus dem Bereich der Validierung medizinisch-diagnostischer Verfahren eingesetzt.

In der Modellierung mittels logistischer Regression ergaben sich für die Variablen SN-MeGo und S-Go/N-Me keine für die Bestimmung des künftigen Wachstumsmusters nutzbaren Zusammenhänge. Lediglich der obere und untere Gonionwinkel ließen eine — wenn auch schwache — prädiktive Wertigkeit erkennen. Die Evaluierung der prognostischen Wertigkeit dieser beiden Anteile des Kieferwinkels mit Hilfe graphischer Verfahren unter Anwendung von “receiver operating characteristics”-(ROC-)Kurven ebenso wie die Bestimmung der Flächen unter den Kurven bestätigten den gefundenen Zusammenhang. Insgesamt traten aber auch hier die Grenzen der Vorhersage deutlich hervor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abel U. Die Bewertung diagnostischer Tests. Stuttgart: Hippokrates, 1993:123–35, 145–57.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aki T, Nanda RS, Currier GF, et al. Assessment of symphysis morphology as a predictor of mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:60–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London-New York-Tokyo: Chapman & Hall, 1991:277–364.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balbach DR. The cephalometric relationship between the morphology of the mandible and its future occlusal position. Angle Orthod 1969;39:29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatia SN, Wright GW, Leighton BC. A proposed multivariate model for prediction of facial growth. Am J Orthod 1979;75:264–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55:585–99.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burdach-Berger W, Witt E. Fernröntgenologischer Vergleich zwischen Eltern und Kindern zur Wachstumsvorhersage des Unterkiefers. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1977;38:148–60.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buschang PH, Tanguay R, LaPalme L, et al. Mandibular growth prediction: mean growth increments versus mathematical models. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:290–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications, 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeKock WH, Knott VB, Meredith HV. Change during childhood and youth in facial depths from integumental profile points to a line through bregma and sellion. Am J Orthod 1968;54:111–31.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Durlak C, Witt E. Der Stellenwert der Symphyse für die Wachstumsprognose des Unterkiefers. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1980;41:18–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gärtner U, Scheulen ME, Conradt C, et al. Wertigkeit des tumorassoziierten Antigens CA 72-4 gegenüber CEA und CA 19-9 in der Magenkarzinom-Nachsorge. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1998;123:69–73.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greenberg LZ, Johnston LE. Computerized prediction: the accuracy of a contemporary long-range forecast. Am J Orthod 1975;67:243–52.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hixon EH. Prediction of facial growth. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc 1968;44:127–39.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York-Chicester-Brisbane: Wiley, 1989:82–134.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Houston WJB. The current status of facial growth prediction —A review. Br J Orthod 1979;6:11–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382–90.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jarabak JR, Fizzell JA. Technique and treatment with light-wire edgewise appliances. St Louis: Mosby, 1972:113–205.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johnston LE. A statistical evaluation of cephalometric prediction. Angle Orthod 1968;38:284–304.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johnston LE. A simplified approach to prediction. Am J Orthod 1975;67:253–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jones BH, Meredith HV. Vertical change in osseous and odontic portions of human face height between the ages of 5 and 15 years. Am J Orthod 1966;52:902–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kerr WJS. A longitudinal cephalometric study of dento-facial growth from 5 to 15 years. Br J Orthod 1979;6:115–21.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lande MJ. Growth behavior of the human bony facial profile as revealed by serial cephalometric roentgenology. Angle Orthod 1952;22:78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lee RS, Daniel FJ, Swartz M, et al. Assessment of a method for the prediction of mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91:395–402.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maj G, Luzi C. Longitudinal study of mandibular growth between nine and thirteen years as a basis for an attempt of its prediction. Angle Orthod 1964;34:220–30.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Meredith HV. Recent studies on growth of the body and face. Am J Orthod 1959;45:110–24.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Odegaard J. Growth of the mandible studied with the aid of metal implants. Am J Orthod 1970;57:145–57.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Popovich F, Thompson GW. Craniofacial templates for orthodontic case analysis. Am J Orthod 1977;71:406–20.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rakosi T. Atlas und Anleitung zur praktischen Fernröntgenanalyse, 2. Aufl. München-Wien: Hanser, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ricketts RM. Cephalometric synthesis. Am J Orthod 1960;46:647–73.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ricketts RM. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology. Angle Orthod 1972;42:179–99.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schmuth GPF, Madre D. Prediction of growth rotation of the lower jaw and the modification of overbite. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:155–68.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Skieller V, Björk A, Linde-Hansen T. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation evaluated from a longitudinal implant sample. Am J Orthod 1984;86:359–70.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Suzuki A, Takahama Y. Parental data used to predict growth of craniofacial form. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;99:107–21.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Witt E, Köran I. Untersuchung zur Validität der Computerwachstumsvorhersage. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1982;43:139–59.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher J. Lux.

Additional information

Dedicated to Prof. Dr. Emil Witt on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lux, C.J., Conradt, C., Stellzig, A. et al. Evaluation of the predictive impact of cephalometric variables. J Orofac Orthop/Fortschr Kieferorthop 60, 95–107 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01298960

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01298960

Key words

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation