Comparison of Diagnostic Validity of Cephalometric Analyses of the ANB Angle and Tau Angle for Assessment of the Sagittal Relationship of Jaw and Mandible.

BACKGROUND

Cephalometric analysis is an essential tool used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and repeatability of new cephalometric points introduced in Tau angle analysis, in contrast to the gold standard, which is the analysis of the ANB angle. For this purpose, an attempt was made to assess the repeatability and reliability of the introduction of anthropometric points by evaluating both inter- and intraobserver parameters, as well as the agreement among the orthodontists participating in the study.

METHODS

Repeatability and reliability assessments for all six anthropometric points (N, A, B, T, M, G) used in the analysis of the ANB and Tau angles were conducted individually by 29 orthodontists. This assessment was performed in triplicate on the day of the study, on the day following the first study, and on the seventh day after the second study. Measurement errors for the ANB and Tau angles were evaluated using the Dahlberg formula and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

The orthodontists in the study measured sagittal discrepancy significantly more accurately using the ANB angle compared to the Tau angle (p < 0.001). The Dahlberg error for measuring the Tau angle was three times greater than that for the ANB angle (p < 0.001). Additionally, the ICC for the Tau angle was more than 3.5 times smaller than that for the ANB angle, while the R&R error for Tau measurement was more than three times greater than that for the ANB angle (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ANB angle measurements exhibit fewer errors in comparison to Tau angle measurements.