How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether lateral cephalometric radiographs influence orthodontic treatment planning. It aimed to compare the odds of a change in treatment plan in three groups of orthodontists who treatment planned six cases on two occasions, T1 and T2, with the provision of a lateral cephalometric radiograph being varied.

Methods: The records of 6 orthodontic patients were copied onto compact discs and sent to the 199 participating orthodontists. The orthodontists were allocated to 3 groups, A, B, and C. Clinicians in group A were given all records except the lateral cephalometric radiographs at the T1 and T2 planning sessions. Clinicians in group B were given all records except the lateral cephalometric radiograph at T1 and all records including the lateral cephalometric radiograph and tracing at T2. Clinicians in group C were given all records including the lateral cephalometric radiographs and tracings at T1 and T2. All participants were sent records at T1; those who returned the treatment-planning questionnaire were sent the second set of records and questionnaire at T2, 8 weeks later. Invitations to participate were distributed to all specialist orthodontists who were members of the British Orthodontic Society (n = 950). Of these, 199 orthodontists agreed to take part, a response rate of 21%. Of the 199 who agreed to participate, 149 completed the first treatment-planning questionnaire (T1), for a response rate of 75%. Of the 149 who completed that questionaire, 114 completed the second treatment-planning questionnaire (T2), for a 77% response rate.

Results: The availability of a lateral cephalometric radiograph and its tracing did not make a significant difference to any treatment-planning decisions, with the exception of the decision to extract or not between groups B and C for all 6 patients combined, and between groups B and C and groups B and A for patient 4 (Class I incisor relationship on a Class II skeletal base).

Conclusions: For most treatment-planning decisions in these 6 patients, the availability of a lateral cephalometric radiograph and its tracing did not make a significant difference to the treatment decisions. For 1 patient, there was a significant change in the extraction decision when a lateral cephalometric radiograph was provided. This highlights the uncertainty surrounding the necessity for lateral cephalometric radiographs in treatment planning. Further research in this area is encouraged to resolve this dichotomy.