A critical review is presented of the basic properties and applications of cephalometry as a clinical tool with a focus on the evaluation of sagittal discrepancy. Diagnostic cephalometric assessments are subjective and not based on evidence. To assess individual skeletal and/or facial soft tissue form subjectively, selected norms are used. Norms have been developed for various ethnical groups to improve clinical applicability, but subjectivity remains. That subjectivity precludes application of a modern review system, making the present review a personal account. The cephalometric evaluation of sagittal discrepancy finds its historic origin in the Angle classification. Recent publications try to improve accuracy in classifying sagittal discrepancy. It remains unclear in what sense such efforts influence treatment decisions and/or treatment effect. Almost all selected landmarks are located on or dependent upon periosteal/endosteal bone image contours. Their homology is based on circumstantial reasoning and stability over time, which is implicitly assumed. However, implant growth studies and histological investigations show most landmarks to be unstable, as they are involved in displacement and bone remodelling. These landmarks are therefore heterologous when used for individual evaluation of change over time. Notwithstanding the above-indicated limitations, diagnostic cephalometric assessments are clinically useful and help to develop perceptions of balance and harmony and communication between colleagues and patients. There is no evidence-based method to prefer one particular diagnostic method. Landmark location accuracy and geometric issues do not play a decisive role. The subjective characteristic of diagnostic evaluations limits their power to size/shape comparisons. Structural superimposition is the valid biologically evidence-based method to provide advanced insight in individual growth and/or treatment changes and their variations.
AllenWI. Historical aspects of roentgenographic cephalometry. Am J Orthod1963; 49: 451–459.
2.
AngleEH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos1899; 41: 248–264350–357.
3.
AngleEH. Malocclusion of the Teeth. 7th edn.Philadelphia, PA: SS White, 1907.
4.
BaikCY, VerveridouM.A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2004; 126: 100–105.
5.
BaumrindS, KornEL, WestEE. Prediction of mandibular rotation: an empirical test of clinician performance. Am J Orthod1984; 86: 371–385.
6.
BaumrindS, KornEL, Ben-BassetY, WestEE. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 1. A description of osseous changes relative to superimposition on metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1987a; 91: 29–41.
7.
BaumrindS, KornEL, Ben-BassetY, WestEE. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 2. Masking of remodeling effects when an ‘anatomical’ method of superimposition is used in the absence of metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1987b; 91: 463–474.
8.
BhadWA, NayakS, DoshiUH. A new approach of assessing sagittal dysplasia: the W angle. Eur J Orthod2013; 35: 66–70.
9.
BjörkA, SkiellerV.Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible: a synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod1983; 5: 1–46.
10.
BraunS, KittlesonR, KimK.The G-axis: a growth vector for the mandible. Angle Orthod2004; 74: 328–331.
11.
BraunS, RudmanRT, MurdochHJ, HickenS, KittlesonR, FergusonDJ. C-axis: a growth vector for the maxilla. Angle Orthod1999; 69: 539–542.
12.
BroadbentBH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod1931; 1: 45–66.
13.
BroadbentBH. The face of the normal child. Angle Orthod1937; 7: 183–208.
14.
BroadbentBHSr, BroadbentBHJr, GoldenWH. Bolton Standards of Dentofacial Developmental Growth. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby, 1975.
15.
BrodieAG. On the growth pattern of the human head from the third month to eight years of life. Am J Anat1941; 68: 209–262.
16.
BromageTG, LacruzRS, HoggR, GoldmanHM, McFarlinSC, WarshawJ.Lamellar bone is an incremental tissue reconciling enamel rhythms, body size and organismal life history. Calcif Tissue Int2009; 5: 388–404.
17.
BromageTG, JuwayeyiYM, SmolyarI, HuB, GomezS, ChisiJ.Enamel-calibrated lamellar bone reveals long period growth rate variability in humans. Cells Tissues Organs2011; 194: 124–130.
18.
BruhnC, HofrathH, KorkausG (eds). Handbuch der Zahnheilkunde, Vol. 4. Gebiss-, Kiefer- und Gesichtsorthopädie. Munich: JF Bergmann. 1939.
19.
CaseC.Dental Orthopedia. Chicago, IL: The C.S. Case Company, 1908.
de CosterL.Nouvelle Methode d'analyse morphologique en orthopedie dentofaciale. Rev Stomat1931; 32: 552.
22.
de CosterL.The network method of orthodontic diagnosisAngle Orthod1939; 9: 3–15.
23.
DoppelDM, DamonWM, JoondephDR, LittleRM. An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1994; 105: 161–168.
24.
DoshiJR, TrivediK, ShyagaliT.Predictability of yen angle & appraisal of various cephalometric parameters in the assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible in Angle's class II malocclusion. People J Sci Res2012; 5: 1–8.
25.
DownsWB. Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod1948; 34: 813–840.
26.
DuterlooHS. Complications in the treatment of Angle class II division 1 malocclusion. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd1998; 105: 440–443.
27.
DuterlooHS, PlanchéPG. Handbook of Cephalometric Superimposition. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence Publish, 2011.
28.
EnlowDH. The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal Growth and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Hoeber Medical Division, 1968.
29.
EnlowDH, HansMG. Essentials of Facial Growth. 2nd edn. Ann Arbor, MI: Needham Press, 2008.
30.
FreemanRS. Adjusting A–N–B angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod1981; 51: 162–171.
31.
GhafariJG. The Moorrees mesh diagram: proportionate analysis of the human face. In Jacobson A, Jacobson RL (eds). Radiographic Cephalometry: From Basics to 3-D Imaging. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Quintessence, 2006. pp. 161–185.
32.
HäggU, AttströmK.Mandibular growth estimated by four cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1992; 102: 146–152.
33.
Hall-ScottJ.The maxillary-mandibular planes bisector: a new reference plane for anteroposterior measurement of the dental bases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1994; 105: 583–591.
34.
HofrathH.Die Bedeutung der Röntgenfern- und Abstandsaufnahme für die Diagnostik der Kieferanomalien. Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie1931; 1: 232–258.
35.
HoldawayRA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod1983; 84: 1–28.
36.
HoldawayRA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod1984; 85: 279–293.
37.
HoustonWJ. Bases for the analysis of cephalometric radiographs: intracranial reference structures or natural head position. Proc Finn Dent Soc1991; 87: 43–49.
JacobsonA.The Wits appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod1975; 67: 125–138.
40.
JacobsonA, JacobsonRL (eds). Radiographic Cephalometry: From Basics to 3-D Imaging. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Quintessence, 2006.
41.
KamoenA, DermautL, VerbeeckR.The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod2001; 23: 569–578.
42.
KeithA.Description of a new craniometer and of certain age changes in the anthropoid skull. J Anat Physiol1910; 44: 251–270.
43.
KeithA, CampionG.A contribution to the mechanism of growth of the human face. Int J Orthod1922; 8: 607–633.
44.
KorkhausG. In Bruhn C, Hofrath H, Korkaus G (eds). Handbuch der Zahnheilkunde, Vol. 4. Gebiss-, Kiefer- und Gesichtsorthopädie. Munich: JF Bergmann, 1939, 1–719.
45.
KumarS, ValiathanA, GautamP, ChakravarthyK, JayaswalP.An evaluation of the Pi analysis in the assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. J Orthod2012; 39: 262–269.
46.
LiebermanDE. The Evolution of the Human Head. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2011.
47.
LivieratosFA, JohnstonLEJr., A comparison of one-stage and two-stage nonextraction alternatives in matched Class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108: 118–131.
48.
LundströmA, LundströmF, LebretLM, MoorreesCF. Natural head position and natural head orientation: basic considerations in cephalometric analysis and research. Eur J Orthod1995; 17: 111–120.
49.
MartinR.Lehrbuch der anthropologie in systematischer darstellung mit besonderer berücksichtigung der anthropologischen methoden für studierende ärtze und forschungsreisende. Jena: G. Fischer. 1928.
50.
MelsenB.The cranial base: the postnatal development of the cranial base studied histologically on human autopsy material. Acta Odontol Scand Suppl1974; 32: 1–126.
51.
MoorreesCF, GrønAM. Principles of orthodontic diagnosis. Angle Orthod1966; 36: 258–262.
52.
NandaRS, MerrillRM. Cephalometric assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1994; 105: 328–344.
53.
NeelaPK, MascarenhasR, HusainA.A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the yen angle. World J Orthod2009; 10: 147–151.
54.
NielsenIL. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1989; 95: 422–431.
55.
NötzelF, SchultzC, HartungM.Fernröntgenseitenbildanalyse. Cologne: Deutscher Zahnärzte, 2007.
56.
ReichenbachE, BrücklH.Kieferorthopädische Klinik und Therapie. 4th edn. Leipzig: JA Barth Verlag, 1957. p. 57, 59.
57.
RickettsRM. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthod1960; 30: 103–133.
58.
RickettsRM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. Angle Orthod1981; 51: 115–150.
59.
RickettsRM. The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod1982; 81: 351–370.
60.
RiedelRA. The relation of maxillary structures to the cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod1952; 22: 142–145.
61.
RioloML, MoyersRE, McNamaraJAJr, HunterWS. An Atlas of Craniofacial Growth, Monograph 2, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1974.
62.
SchwarzAM. Gebiszwinkel und Profil. Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferheilk1935; 2: 488.
63.
SpringateSD. Natural reference structures in the human mandible: a systematic search in children with tantalum implants. Eur J Orthod2010; 32: 354–362.
64.
SpringateSD, JonesAG. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: A comparison with tantalum implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1998; 113: 263–270.
65.
SteinerC.Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod1959; 29: 8–29.
66.
ThilanderB, OdmanJ, LekholmU.Orthodontic aspects of the use of oral implants in adolescents: a 10-year follow-up study. Eur J Orthod2001; 23: 715–731.
67.
TweedCH. The Frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod1954; 24: 121–169.
68.
van der LindenFP. Sheldon Friel memorial lecture 2007: myths and legends in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod2008; 30: 449–468.
69.
van LoonJA. A new method for indicating normal and abnormal relations of teeth to the facial lines. Dent Cosmos1915; 57: 973, 1093, 1229.
70.
VerayannontP, HäggU, WongRW, McGrathC, YeungS.Assessment of maxillary position. Implant vs cephalometric methods. Angle Orthod2010; 80: 876–883.
71.
WylieWL. The Assessment of anteroposterior dysplasia. Angle Orthod1947; 3: 97–109.
