Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Recurso digital |
| Lingua: | inglese |
| Pubblicazione: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Accesso online: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20022403 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866902003743981568 |
|---|---|
| author | Dr. Suhas* |
| author_facet | Dr. Suhas* |
| contents | <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Accurate<span> </span>assessment<span> </span>of<span> </span>sagittal<span> </span>skeletal<span> </span>relationships<span> </span>plays<span> </span>a<span> </span>pivotal<span> </span>role<span> </span>in<span> </span>orthodontic<span> </span>diagnosis<span> </span>and treatment planning. The ANB angle, introduced by Cecil C. Steiner, remains one of the most widely used parameters; however, it is influenced by cranial base length and jaw rotations. Similarly, the WITS<span> </span>appraisal<span> </span>proposed<span> </span>by<span> </span>Alexander<span> </span>Jacobson<span> </span>depends<span> </span>on<span> </span>the<span> </span>occlusal<span> </span>plane,<span> </span>limiting<span> </span>its<span> </span><span>reliability. </span></span><span>To<span> </span>overcome<span> </span>these<span> </span>limitations,<span> </span>alternative<span> </span>angular<span> </span>parameters<span> </span>such<span> </span>as<span> </span>the<span> </span>Beta<span> </span>angle,<span> </span>Yen<span> </span>angle,<span> </span>and W angle have been introduced. While these parameters attempt to reduce dependency on cranial landmarks, variability in landmark identification and geometric construction persists.</span></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_20022403 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | COMPARATIVE RELIABILITY OF THE TAU ANGLE VERSUS YEN, BETA, W, AND ANB ANGLES IN SAGITTAL SKELETAL ASSESSMENT USING FACAD SOFTWARE Dr. Suhas* <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Accurate<span> </span>assessment<span> </span>of<span> </span>sagittal<span> </span>skeletal<span> </span>relationships<span> </span>plays<span> </span>a<span> </span>pivotal<span> </span>role<span> </span>in<span> </span>orthodontic<span> </span>diagnosis<span> </span>and treatment planning. The ANB angle, introduced by Cecil C. Steiner, remains one of the most widely used parameters; however, it is influenced by cranial base length and jaw rotations. Similarly, the WITS<span> </span>appraisal<span> </span>proposed<span> </span>by<span> </span>Alexander<span> </span>Jacobson<span> </span>depends<span> </span>on<span> </span>the<span> </span>occlusal<span> </span>plane,<span> </span>limiting<span> </span>its<span> </span><span>reliability. </span></span><span>To<span> </span>overcome<span> </span>these<span> </span>limitations,<span> </span>alternative<span> </span>angular<span> </span>parameters<span> </span>such<span> </span>as<span> </span>the<span> </span>Beta<span> </span>angle,<span> </span>Yen<span> </span>angle,<span> </span>and W angle have been introduced. While these parameters attempt to reduce dependency on cranial landmarks, variability in landmark identification and geometric construction persists.</span></p> |
| title | COMPARATIVE RELIABILITY OF THE TAU ANGLE VERSUS YEN, BETA, W, AND ANB ANGLES IN SAGITTAL SKELETAL ASSESSMENT USING FACAD SOFTWARE |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20022403 |