Tatis cephalometric analysis vs Jarabak and Ricketts. Comparison of rotational mandibular growth and facial biotype.

Panoramic X-ray analysis developed by Dr Tatis allows performing assessment to reach a structural diagnosis in orthodontics, considering the sagittal, vertical and cross-sectional planes. Objectives: To compare the type of rotational mandibular growth and facial biotype using Tatis and the data obtained using Jarabak and Ricketts cephalometric analysis. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using diagnostic material recorded during 2014. Thirty-one randomly selected patients presenting for orthodontic consultation in Colombia were evaluated at Orthomax Center. Intra-extra oral photographs, plaster casts, profile teleradiographs, and panoramic radiographs with and without a bite block were taken. Tatis, Jarabak and Ricketts cephalometric studies were performed by two calibrated investigators. Growth trend was determined according to gonian angle using Tatis, gonian angle as defined by Jarabak, and mandibular arc as used by Ricketts, and facial biotype was determined based on assessment of glenoid fosa using Tatis cephalometric analysis. Results were analyzed using Student’s t test. Results: No statistically significant differences between right and left gonial angle (p>0.05) were observed using Tatis analysis. Average gonial angle using Tatis analysis was 118° on both sides. According to typing established by Jarabak, 26 patients were brachyfacial with an average gonial angle of 118º and anterior rotational growth. No statistically significant differences were found between values obtained using Tatis and Jarabak. Comparison of results with values corresponding to Ricketts’ mandibular arc showed no significant differences (p>0.05). Both Jarabak and Ricketts cephalogram analyses showed brachyfacial biotype and anterior rotational mandibular growth, while Tatis analysis showed 70% of patients were brachyfacial and the remaining 30% were mesiofacial. Discrepancies were observed when comparing facial biotype according to glenoid fossa using Tatis cephalometric analysis and facial biotypes according to Jarabak and Ricketts, with results varying greatly. Conclusion: Comparison of results using Ricketts and Jarabak cephalometric analysis as reference shows measures on Tatis cephalometric analysis are not reliable to determine facial biotype and rotational mandibular growth.