Evaluating the Diagnostic Reliability of MKG & Tau Angle with  ANB Angle , W Angle, Yen Angle, Beta Angle, and Wits Appraisal  in Mixed Solan Population – A Cephalometric Study

Dr. Isha Thakur; Dr. Merry; Dr. Sanjay Mittal; Dr. Isha Aggarwal; Dr. Pallavi Vishavkarma; Dr. Avijit Avasthi

doi:10.21276/ujds.2026.12.1.11

Dr. Isha Thakur Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, H.P.
Dr. Merry Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi
Dr. Sanjay Mittal Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi
Dr. Isha Aggarwal Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi
Dr. Pallavi Vishavkarma Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi
Dr. Avijit Avasthi Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21276/ujds.2026.12.1.11

Keywords: MKG angle, Tau angle, sagittal discrepancy, cephalometric analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate evaluation of sagittal jaw discrepancies is essential for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Conventional cephalometric parameters, including ANB angle, Wits appraisal, Beta, Yen, and W angles, are commonly used but have limitations. Newer measurements such as the MKG and Tau angles have been proposed to improve diagnostic reliability. Objective: To assess the diagnostic reliability of MKG and Tau angles and their correlation with established cephalometric parameters in a mixed Solan population. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 pretreatment lateral cephalograms were classified into Class I, II, and III malocclusions based on ANB angle. Parameters analyzed included ANB, Wits appraisal, Beta, Yen, W, MKG, and Tau angles. Statistical analysis involved ANOVA, post hoc Bonferroni tests, and Spearman’s correlation to evaluate intergroup differences and associations. Results: The Tau angle demonstrated high sensitivity (100%) in Class II and III malocclusions, with strong correlations to conventional measurements. The MKG angle showed moderate sensitivity (76–87%) but was less consistent in Class I. Beta angle and Wits appraisal achieved the highest overall sensitivity (100%). All parameters differed significantly among malocclusion groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The Tau angle is a highly reliable parameter for assessing sagittal discrepancies, particularly in Class II and III cases, and can complement ANB and Beta angles in clinical practice. MKG provides additional diagnostic support but with slightly lower predictive accuracy. Integrating these novel angles may enhance diagnostic precision and enable more personalized orthodontic treatment planning.

References

1. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1952; 22(3): 142-45.
2. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 1975; 67(2): 125-38.
3. Baik CY , Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta angle. Am J OrthodDentofacOrthop. 2004;126(1): 100-05.
4. Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the YEN angle. World J Orthod. 2009; 10(2): 147-51.
5. Bhad WA, Nayak S, Doshi UH. A new approach of assessing sagittal dysplasia: the W angle. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35(1): 66-70.
6. Chachada A, Ostwal P, Jain M, Khandelwal P, James J, Nahta M. MKG Angle: A True Marker for Maxillomandibular Discrepancy. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2020; 54(3): 220-25.
7. Gupta P, Singh N, Tripathi T, Gopal R, Rai P. Tau Angle: A New Approach for Assessment of True Sagittal Maxillomandibular Relationship. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020; 13(5): 497-500.
8. Jacobson A. Radiographic cephalometry: From Basics to Vidideoimaging. 1st ed. Quintessence. 1995; 1-322.
9. Sai T A S, Chalasani S K, Devanna R, Anne V, Gavara S G, Vundru V S. Reliability of Numeric Measurements for Measuring Sagittal Discrepancies. Afr J Biomed Res. 2024; 27(3): 685-92.
10. Kotula J, Kuc A, Szelag E, Babczynska A, Lis J, Matys J et al. Comparison of Diagnostic Validity of Cephalometric Analyses of the ANB Angle and Tau Angle for Assessment of the Sagittal Relationship of Jaw and Mandible. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(19): 1-16.
11. Kaushik G, Jasoria G, Parihar S, Dev S, Syed R, Shrivas U. Predictability of MKG & Tau angle and their Correlation with ANB angle, W angle, Yen angle, Beta angle, and WIT'S appraisal in Central Indian Population. University J Dent Scie. 2023; 9(1): 23-8.
12. Kotula J, Kuc A E, Lis J, Kawaka B, Sarul M. New Sagittal and Vertical Cephalometric Analysis Methods: A Systematic Review. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(7): 1-33.
13. Ali SM, Manjunath G, Sheetal A. A Comparison of 3 New Cephalometric Angles with ANB and Wits Appraisal for Assessing Sagittal Jaw Relationship. 2018; 6(2): 28-32.
14. Bajjad AA, Chauhan AK, Sharma A, Kumar S. Cephalometric analysis for assessing sagittal jaw relationship- A comparative study. 2021; 7(2): 150-9.
15. Daokar S, Rajput R, Syed J, Pathak S, Hadole P. Comparison and Evaluation of Various AP Skeletal Analysis: A Cephalometric Study. 2018; 8(2): 219-26.