Qualitative and quantitative agreement research on three diagnostic methods for maxillary transverse discrepancy

Area of Science:

• Dentistry
• Orthodontics
• Cephalometrics

Background:

• Maxillary transverse deficiency (MTD) is a common condition affecting facial aesthetics and function.
• Accurate diagnosis of MTD is crucial for effective orthodontic treatment planning.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the diagnostic agreement of three methods for maxillary transverse deficiency (MTD): University of Pennsylvania analysis (UPA), Yonsei transverse analysis (YTA), and Andrews Element III analysis (AEA).
• To evaluate the consistency of these diagnostic methods across different skeletal malocclusion classes (I, II, and III).

Main Methods:

• A cross-sectional study involving 360 patients categorized into skeletal classes I, II, and III based on the ANB angle.
• Assessment using UPA, YTA, and AEA, with quantitative agreement evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and qualitative agreement by Cohen's kappa.

Main Results:

• In skeletal class III, diagnostic methods showed varying degrees of agreement, with UPA and YTA demonstrating good qualitative consistency.
• For skeletal class I, AEA showed moderate quantitative agreement with UPA, while UPA and YTA had poor agreement.
• In skeletal class II, AEA and UPA exhibited moderate quantitative and high qualitative agreement, whereas YTA showed moderate qualitative agreement with both.

Conclusions:

• The incidence of MTD is highest in skeletal class III and lowest in skeletal class II.
• Diagnostic method agreement for MTD varies by skeletal malocclusion; consistency is observed among YTA, AEA, and UPA only in skeletal class III.
• For skeletal classes I and II, AEA and UPA are recommended for MTD diagnosis due to better agreement.