FARKLI KRANİYOFASİYAL BÜYÜME PATERNLERİNDE EL BİLEK VE SERVİKAL VERTEBRAL MATURASYONUN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: ÖN ÇALIŞMA

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 43 - 50, 26.01.2024

Sadık Türker Akdemir Sevil Akkaya

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1338181

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı kraniyofasiyal büyüme paternlerine sahip bireylerin alt gruplara ayrılarak , el bilek kemik yaş tayin yöntemi ile servikal vertebral yaş yönteminin kantitatif olarak karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu ön çalışmanın materyali, Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı arşivinden sağlanmıştır. Her bir grupta 12 gözlem olmak üzere toplamda 216 gözlem ile çalışma hedeflenmiştir. Kız ve erkek sayısı yarı yarıya olacak şekilde 108 erkek ve 108 kız olarak bölünmüştür. Bu hastaların tamamı pubertal dönemde olup kronolojik yaş aralığı 9-14 olarak belirlenmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler incelenirken Spearman’s Korelasyon Katsayısından ve/veya normal dağılımdan gelen değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler incelenirken Pearson Korelasyon Katsayısından yararlanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışma toplam gruplarda değerlendirildiğinde korelasyon anlamlı bulunmuştur. Fakat alt gruplarda yapılan değerlendirmelerde her bir grup için farklılıklar bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Bu ön çalışma sonuçlarına göre servikal vertebral yaş değerlendirilmesi sonucunda görülen farklılıklar nedeniyle iskelet yaşı tayininde el-bilek grafisi kadar güvenli kullanılmaması gerektiği; bununla birlikte daha geniş çalışma gruplarında yapılacak araştırma sonuçlarına ihtiyaç olduğu düşüncesindeyiz.

Keywords

Büyüme ve gelişim, El-bilek kemik yaşı, Kraniyofasiyal büyüme paterni, Servikal vertebral maturasyon

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF WRIST AND CERVICAL VERTEBRAL MATURATION IN DIFFERENT CRANIOFACIAL GROWTH PATTERNS: A PRELIMINARY STUDY

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to divide individuals with different craniofacial growth patterns into subgroups and to compare quantitatively the wrist bone age determination method and the cervical vertebral age method. Materials and Methods: The material of this preliminary study was obtained from the archive of Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics. It was aimed to study with a total of 216 observations, 12 observations in each group. In these groups, as 108 boys and 108 girls. These patients were in the pubertal period and the chronological age range was determined as 9-14. While examining the relationships between the variables, Spearman's Correlation Coefficient was used and/or Pearson's Correlation Coefficient was used when examining the relations between the variables from the normal distribution.
Results: When the study was evaluated in total groups, the correlation was found to be significant. However, in the evaluations made in the subgroups, differences were found for each group. Conclusion: According to the results of this preliminary study, it should not be used as safely as hand-wrist radiography in skeletal age determination due to differences observed in cervical vertebral age evaluation; however, we think that research results in larger study groups are needed.

Keywords

Cervical vertebral maturation, Craniofacial growth pattern, Growth and development, Hand-wrist bone age

References

• Referans1. Demırjıan A, Goldsteın H. New systems for dental maturity based on seven and four teeth Ann Hum Biol 1976; 3.5: 411-21.
• Referans2. Baccettı T, Franchı L, Mcnamara JR, James A. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics In: Seminars in Orthodontics WB Saunders 2005; s. 119-29.
• Referans3. Lai EH, Liu JP, Chang JZ, Tsai SJ, Yao CC, Chen MH, Chen YJ, Lin CP. Radiographic assessment of skeletal maturation stages for orthodontic patients: hand-wrist bones or cervical vertebrae J Formos Med Assoc 2008; 107: 316-25.
• Referans4. Chung DD, Ghanouni S. Comparison of abnormalities in the sequence of growth stages in the skeletal maturity index vs cervical vertebral maturation Angle Orthod 2022;92:353-57.
• Referans5. Gabriel DB, Southard KA, Qian F, Marshall SD, Franciscus RG, Southard TE. Cervical vertebrae maturation method:poor reproducibility Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136:478.7;478-7.
• Referans6. Nejati P, Lotan S, Moezy A, Moezy A, Nejati M. The relationship of forward head posture and rounded shoulders with neck pain in Iranian oce workers Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 2014;28:26.
• Referans7. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Marshall WA. Assessment of Skeletal Maturity and Prediction of Adult Height (TW2 Method) New York, Academic Press 1975.
• Referans8. Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist, 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pres 1959; 238.3:393.
• Referans9. Groell R, Lindbichler F, Riepl T, Gherra L, Roposch A, Fotter R. The reliability of bone age determination in central European children using the Greulich and Pyle method Br J Radiol 1999; 72:461-4
• Referans10. Mito T, Sato K, Mitani H. Cervical vertebral bone age in girls Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122:380-85.
• Referans11. Sohrabi A, Babay Ahari S, Moslemzadeh H, Rafighi A, Aghazadeh Z. The reliability of clinical decisions based on the cervical vertebrae maturation staging method Eur J Orthod 2016; 38:8-12.
• Referans12. Baidas L. Correlation between cervical vertebrae morphology and chronological age in Saudi adolescents, King Saud University Journal of Dental Sciences 2012; 3: 21-6.
• Referans13. Schwartz AM. Kopfhaltung und Kiefer. Zeitschrift für Stomatologie 1926;24: 669–774
• Referans14. Rocabado M, Johnston BE Jr, Blakney MG. Physical therapy and dentistry: an overview J Craniomandibular Pract 1982;1:46- 49.
• Referans15. Huggare J, Harkness E. Associations between head posture and dental occlusion (Abstract) J Dent Res 1993;72: 255
• Referans16. Vukicevic V, Petrovic D. Relationship between Head Posture and Parameters of Sagittal Position and Length of Jaws Med Pregl 2016; 69:288–93.
• Referans17. Festa F, Tecco S, Dolci M, Ciufolo F, Di Meo S, Filippi MR, Ferritto AL, D’Attillio M. Relationship between cervical lordosis and facial morphology in Caucasian women with a skeletal class II malocclusion: a cross-sectional study Cranio 2003; 21:121–29.
• Referans18. Armond MC, Generoso R, Falci SGM, Ramos-Jorge ML, Marques LS. Skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae: association with various types of malocclusion Braz Oral Res 2012;26:145-50.
• Referans19. Perinetti G, Rosso L, Riatti R, Contardo L. Sagittal and vertical craniofacial growth pattern and timing of circumpubertal skeletal maturation: a multiple regression study Biomed Res Int 2016;2016.
• Referans20. Çelikoğlu MT. Farklı İskeletsel Malokluzyonların Greulich ve Pyle Atlasına Göre Kemik Yaşının Değerlendirilmesi Türk Ortodonti Derg 2012;25:21-30.
• Referans21. Engel TP, Renkema AM, Katsaros C, Pazera P,Pandis N, Fudalej PS. The cervical vertebrae maturation (CVM) method cannot predict craniofacial growth in girls with Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38:1-7.