The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2012 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Reproducibility of Natural Head Position using Two Methods

N Sanjay, Abdul Rahim Khan, MR Dinesh, KS Girish, Karthik Venkataraghavan

Citation Information : Sanjay N, Khan AR, Dinesh M, Girish K, Venkataraghavan K. Comparison of Reproducibility of Natural Head Position using Two Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (1):31-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1092

Published Online: 01-08-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the maximum reproducibility with minimum variation of natural head position using two methods, i.e. the mirror method and the fluid level device method.

Materials and methods

The study included two sets of 40 lateral cephalograms taken using two methods of obtaining natural head position: (1) The mirror method and (2) fluid level device method, with a time interval of 2 months.

Inclusion criteria

• Subjects were randomly selected aged between 18 to 26 years

Exclusion criteria

• History of orthodontic treatment

• Any history of respiratory tract problem or chronic mouth breathing

• Any congenital deformity

• History of traumatically-induced deformity

• History of myofacial pain syndrome

• Any previous history of head and neck surgery.

Results

The result showed that both the methods for obtaining natural head position—the mirror method and fluid level device method were comparable, but maximum reproducibility was more with the fluid level device as shown by the Dahlberg's coefficient and Bland-Altman plot. The minimum variance was seen with the fluid level device method as shown by Precision and Pearson correlation.

Conclusion

The mirror method and the fluid level device method used for obtaining natural head position were comparable without any significance, and the fluid level device method was more reproducible and showed less variance when compared to mirror method for obtaining natural head position.

Clinical significance

Fluid level device method was more reproducible and shows less variance when compared to mirror method for obtaining natural head position.

How to cite this article

Khan AR, Rajesh RNG, Dinesh MR, Sanjay N, Girish KS, Venkataraghavan K. Comparison of Reproducibility of Natural Head Position using Two Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):31-39.

PDF Share
  1. Radiographic cephalometry. Quintessence Publishing, UK 1995.
  2. Natural head posture: Considerations of reproducibility. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:457-70.
  3. The reproducibility of natural head posture: A methodological study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;93:280-88.
  4. Natural head position: A revival. Am J Orthod 105:5.
  5. Head posture and hypo-mandibular function in man. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;94:393-404.
  6. A simple method for taking natural-head-position cephalograms. Am J Orthod 1983;83:6.
  7. The development of instrumentation for the dynamic measurement of changing head posture. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;99:520-26.
  8. Five-year reproducibility of natural head posture; A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990;97:489-94.
  9. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Am J Orthod 1956;26:4.
  10. Head posture and its relationship to deglutition. Am J Orthod 1966;36:4.
  11. Experimental manipulation of head posture. Am J Orthod March 1980;258-68.
  12. Orientation-Sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976;69:6.
  13. Head posture and dentofacial proportions. Angle Orthodontist 1981;51:3.
  14. Resistance to nasal airflow related to changes in head posture. Am J Orthod 1981;80:5.
  15. Intra-and interexaminer variability in head posture recorded by dental auxiliaries. Am J Orthod 1982;82:1.
  16. Airway adequacy, head posture and craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod 1984;86;214-23.
  17. Growth changes in head position related to craniofacial development. Am J Orthod 1986;89:132-40.
  18. Head posture in blind subjects. Am J Orthod 1986;327-34.
  19. Association between the postural orientation of sella-nasion and skeletodental morphology. Angle Orthodontics 1987;99-112.
  20. Cheek pressure and head posture. Angle Orthod 1988;47-57.
  21. A summary five-factor cephalometric analysis based on natural head posture and the true horizontal. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;93:213-23.
  22. Repeatability of head posture recordings from lateral cephalometric radiographs. Br J Orthod 1988;15:157-62.
  23. Adaptation of head posture in response to relocating the center of mass: A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;312-18.
  24. The influence of cephalostatic ear rods on the positions of the head and neck during postural recordings. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;95:312-18.
  25. Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992;101:244-47.
  26. Head posture and cephalometric analysis: An integrated photographic/radiographic technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:257-66.
  27. Upright and supine cephalometric evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and snoring subjects. Angle Orthodontist 1994;1:63-73.
  28. Frankfort horizontal as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;537-40.
  29. Natural head posture, upper airway morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea severity in adults. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:133-43.
  30. Relationship of natural head position to craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;117:406-17.
  31. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod 2001;71:442-51.
  32. Effect of head rotation on lateral cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod 2001;71:396-403.
  33. A modified approach for obtaining cephalograms in the natural head position. Br J Orthod 2002;28:1.
  34. Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod 2002;72:1.
  35. Craniofacial morphology, head posture, and nasal respiratory resistance in obstructive sleep apnoea: An inter-ethnic comparison. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:91-97.
  36. The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:315-21.
  37. A natural head position technique for radiographic cephalometry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993;22.
  38. Fundamentals of Biostatistics (5th ed), Duxbury 2000.
  39. Statistics for NIMHANS Publication. India Mental Health Care Research 2002.
  40. A cephalometric analysis based on natural head position. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1991;25:3.
  41. Natural head position natural head orientation: Basic considerations in cephalometric analysis and research. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:111-20.
  42. Angle Orthod Sep 2011;81(5):889-94.
  43. Effect of chin position on natural head orientation reproducibility. Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal May 1, 2011;16(3):e317-22.
  44. Reproducibility of natural head position in profile photographs of children aged 8 to 12 years with and without the aid of a cephalostat May 1, 2011;16(3):e317-22.
  45. Craniofacial reference plane variation and natural head position. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(5):532-40.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.