FARKLI SAGİTTAL İSKELETSEL İLİŞKİYE SAHİP PEDİATRİK ORTODONTİK BİREYLERDE FRONTAL SİNÜS BOYUTLARININ İNCELENMESİ≠

Year 2018, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 144 - 149, 22.04.2018

S. Kutalmış Büyük Ahmet Karaman Hüseyin Şimşek

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.418759

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı sagittal iskeletsel
ilişkiye sahip bireylerde, frontal sinüs morfolojisini postero-anterior
sefalometrik radyograflar kullanarak araştırılmasıdır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: 75 bireyden oluşan çalışma çenelerin
sagittal iskeletsel ilişkisine göre 3 gruba ayrılmıştır (Sınıf I bireyler;
ortalama yaş: 15,14±1,40 yıl, Sınıf II bireyler; ortalama yaş: 15,21±1,77 yıl,
Sınıf III bireyler; ortalama yaş: 15,16±1,57 yıl). Frontal sinüsün sağ ve sol
maksimum yüksekliği ve genişliği, maksiller genişlik, nazal genişlik, kranial
genişlik ve antegonial genişlik parametreleri 75 postero-anterior sefalometrik
radyograf üzerinde ölçülmüştür. Veriler bağımsız t, Mann Whitney U, tek yönlü
varyans analizi ve Kruskal-Wallis testleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Sağ frontal sinüs yüksekliği, sol frontal
sinüs yüksekliği ve genişliği gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık
göstermiştir (P<0.05). Ayrıca,
Sınıf III bireylerde sağ frontal sinüs genişliği erkeklerde kadınlardan daha
geniş bulunmuştur ve bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (P<0.05).

Sonuç: Frontal sinüs boyut
parametreleri farklı sagittal iskeletsel çene ilişkisine sahip bireylerde
farklılık gösterebildiğinden adli diş hekimliğine farklı bir bakış açısı
getirebilecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Frontal sinüs, iskeletsel maloklüzyon,
postero-anterior sefalometrik radyograf

EVALUATION
OF FRONTAL SINUS DIMENSION IN DIFFERENT SAGITTAL SKELETAL RELATIONSHIP OF
PEDIATRIC ORTHODONTIC SUBJECTS

ABSTRACT

 

Aim: The aim of this present study was to investigate frontal sinus
morphology in different sagittal skeletal relationship subjects by using
postero-anterior cephalometric radiographs.

Materials and
Methods: The study sample consisted of 75 subjects divided
into three according to their jaw sagittal skeletal relationship groups (Class
I subjects; mean age: 15.14±1.40 years, Class II subjects; mean age: 15.21±1.77
years, Class III subjects; mean age: 15.16±1.57 years). The right and left
maximum height and width of the frontal sinus, maxillary width, nasal width,
cranial width, antegonial width parameters were measured in 75 postero-anterior
cephalometric radiographs. The data were analyzed using independent t, Mann
Whitney U, one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results: Right frontal sinus height, left frontal sinus height and width show
statistically significant differences among groups (P<0.05).  Moreover, right
frontal sinus width was larger in males than females in Class III subjects and
this difference was statistically (P<0.05).

Conclusion: The frontal sinus dimension parameters may bring a different
perspective to forensic dentistry because they may differ in individuals with
different sagittal skeletal jaw relationship.

Keywords:
Frontal sinus, skeletal malocclusion

Keywords

Frontal sinüs, iskeletsel maloklüzyon

References

• 1. Kullman L, Eklund E, Grundin R. Value of the frontal sinuses in the identification of the unknown persons. J Forensic Odonstostomatol 1990;8:3-10.
• 2. Morgan TA, Harris MC. The use of X-rays as an aid to medico-legal investigation. J Forensic Med 1953;1:28-38.
• 3. Riddick L, Brogdon BG, Lasswell-Hoff J, Delmas B. Radiographic identification of charred human remains through use of the dorsal defect of the patella. J Forensic Sci 1983;28:263-7.
• 4. Silva RF, Pinto RN, Ferreira GM, Daruge Júnior E. Importance of frontal sinus radiographs for human identification. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 74: 798.
• 5. Maresh MM. Paranasal sinuses from birth to late adolescence. I. Size of the paranasal sinuses as observed in routine postero-anterior roentgenog- rams. Am J Dis Child 1940;60:55–78.
• 6. Maresh MM, Washburn AH. Paranasal sinuses from birth to late adolescence. II. Clinical and roentgen- nographic evidence of infection. Am J Dis Child 1940;60:841–61.
• 7. Odita JC, Akamaguna AI, Ogisi FO, Amu OD, Ugbodaga CI. Pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus in normal and symptomatic children. Pediatr Radiol 1986;16:365–7.
• 8. Rothwell BR. Principles of dental identification. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:253-70.
• 9. Tang JP, Hu DY, Jiang FH, Yu XJ. Assessing fo- rensic applications of the frontal sinus in a Chinese Han population. Forensic Sci Int 2009;183:104-3.
• 10. Wood RE. Forensic aspects of maxillofacial radiology: Review. Forensic Sci Int 2006;159:47-55.
• 11. Quatrehomme G, Fronty P, Sapanet M, Grévin G, Bailet P, Ollier A. Identification by frontal sinus pattern in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Int 1996;83:147-53.
• 12. Asherson N. Identification by frontal sinus prints. A forensic medical pilot survey. London: Lewis and Co.; 1965.
• 13. Yoshino M, Miyasaka S, Sato H, Seta S. Classification system of frontal sinus patterns by radiography. Its application to identification of unknown skeletal remains. Forensic Sci Int 1987;34:289-99.
• 14. Kirk NJ, Wood RE, Goldstein M. Skeletal identification using the frontal sinus region: a retrospective study of 39 cases. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:318–23.
• 15. Reichs KJ. Quantified comparison of frontal sinus patterns by means of computer tomography. Forensic Sci Int 1993;61:141–68.
• 16. White PS, Robinson JM, Stewart IA, Doyle T: Computerized tomography mini-series: an alternative to standard paranasal sinus radiographs. Aust N Z J Surg 1990;60:25-9.
• 17. Sanchez Fernandez JM, Anta Escuredo JA, Sanchez Del Rey A, Santaolalla Montoya F: Morphometric study of the paranasal sinuses in normal and pathological conditions. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120:273-8.
• 18. Emirzeoglu M, Sahin B, Bilgic S, Celebi M, Uzun A. Volumetric evaluation of the paranasal sinuses in normal subjects using computer tomography images: a stereological study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007;34:191-5.
• 19. Pirner S, Tingelhoff K, Wagner I, Westphal R, Rilk M, Wahl FM, Bootz F,Eichhorn KW. CT-based manual segmentation and evaluation of paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:507-18.
• 20. Rubira Bullen IR, Rubira CM, Sarmento VA, Azevedo RA. Frontal sinus size on facial plain radiographs. J Morphol Sci 2010;27:77 81.
• 21. Harris AM, Wood RE, Nortjé CJ, Thomas CJ. The frontal sinus: Forensic fingerprint? A pilot study. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1987;5:9 15.
• 22. Nambiar P, Naidu MD, Subramaniam K. Anatomical variability of the frontal sinuses and their application in forensic identification. Clin Anat 1999;12:16 9.
• 23. Buckland Wright JC. A radiographic examination of frontal sinuses in early British populations. Man 1970;5:512 7.
• 24. Camargo JR, Daruge E, Prado FB, Caria PHF, Alves MC, Silva RF, Daruge Jr E. The frontal sinus morphology in radiographs of Brazilian subjects: Its forensic importance. Braz J Morphol Sci 2007;24:239 43.
• 25. Farias PJ, Gonzalez RE. Existing relation between the size of the frontal sinus and the growth stages of skeletal maturation. Rev Odont Mex 2007;11:12 9.
• 26. Soman BA, Sujatha GP, Lingappa A. Morphometric evaluation of the frontal sinus in relation to age and gender in subjects residing in Davangere, Karnataka. J Forensic Dent Sci 2016;8.
• 27. Uthman AT, Al Rawi NH, Al Naaimi AS, Tawfeeq AS, Suhail EH. Evaluation of frontal sinus and skull measurements using spiral CT scanning: An aid in unknown person identification. Forensic Sci Int 2010;197:124 7.
• 28. Perillo L, De Rosa A, Laselli F, d’Apuzzo F, Grassia V, Cappabianca S. Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of dento-skeletal effects on posteroanterior cephalometry. Prog Orthod 2014;15:46.
• 29. Said OT, Rossouw PE, Fishman LS, Feng C. Relationship between anterior occlusion and frontal sinus size. Angle Orthod 2017;87:752-758. 30. Tai B, Goonewardene MS, Murray K, Koong B, Islam SM. The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice. Aust Orthod J 2014;30:132-42.