Cephalometric Evaluation of Class III Malocclusion Cases with Different Vertical Facial Development

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 349 - 354, 25.08.2020

Barçın Eröz Dilaver , Büşra Beşer , Özlem Çelebi Erdivanlı , Engin Dursun

https://doi.org/10.32448/entupdates.749852

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between vertical facial development and angular and linear measurements of the face.
Methods: Pretreatment cephalometric radiographs of subjects with class III malocclusion were divided into three groups according to vertical facial development as low, normal and high angle. Nine angular, three dimensional and one ratio measurements were performed with the analysis program (AudaxCeph ver. 5.2.0.3610, Audax Slovenia) on the cephalometric radiographs and compared between the vertical growth groups.
Results: There was a significant negative correlation between the Sella-Nasion/Gonion-Menton (SN-GoMe) and Saddle-Nasion-A (SNA), Saddle-Nasion-B (SNB), Incisal Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA) and Jarabak ratio measurements, whereas a significant positive correlation was found between the SN-GoMe and the Gonial and Saddle measurements.
Conclusion: According to the results of the present study, we determined that anterior and posterior development of the face decreases with the increase in the vertical direction of the face. Also, an increase in vertical direction angles including Gonial and Saddle angles significantly correlated with the increase in SN-GoMe angle. Since vertical growth problems can cause complicated and long orthodontic treatment, factors that may affect vertical growth should be addressed, such as mouth breathing.

Keywords

Maxillofacial development, malocclusion, angle class III, vertical dimension, cephalometry

References

• 1. Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969;55:566-77.
• 2. Ranly DM. Craniofacial growth. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:457-70.
• 3. Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004;74:3-15.
• 4. Björk A. The use of metallic implants in the study of facial growth in children: method and application. Am J Phys Anthropol 1968;29:243-54.
• 5. Björk A, Skieller V. Growth of the maxilla in three dimensions as revealed radiographically by the implant method. Br J Orthod 1977;4:53-64.
• 6. Björk A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod 1972;62:339-83.
• 7. Enlow DH, Harris DB. Study of the Postnatal Growth of the Human Mandible. Am J Orthod 1964;50:25-50.
• 8. Opdebeeck H, Bell WH. The short face syndrome. Am J Orthod 1978;73:499-511.
• 9. Schudy FF. Vertical Growth Versus Anteroposterior Growth As Related To Function And Treatment. Angle Orthod 1964;34:75-93.
• 10. Brodie AG. On the growth pattern of the human head. From the third month to the eighth year of life. Am J Anat 1941;68:209-62.
• 11. Harvold EP, Tomer BS, Vargervik K, Chierici G. Primate experiments on oral respiration. Am J Orthod 1981;79:359-72.
• 12. Bresolin D, Shapiro PA, Shapiro GG, Chapko MK, Dassel S. Mouth breathing in allergic children: its relationship to dentofacial development. Am J Orthod 1983;83:334-40.
• 13. Zheng W, Zhang X, Dong J, He J. Facial morphological characteristics of mouth breathers vs. nasal breathers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of lateral cephalometric data. Exp Ther Med 2020;19:3738-50.
• 14. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1952;22:142-5.
• 15. Nielsen IL. Vertical malocclusions: etiology, development, diagnosis and some aspects of treatment. Angle Orthod 1991;61:247-60.
• 16. Ceylan I, Baydas B, Erdem A. The investigation of the effects of mouth breathing on transverse and vertical facial growth. [Article in Turkish] Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 1995;5:39-46.
• 17. Trask GM, Shapiro GG, Shapiro PA. The effects of perennial allergic rhinitis on dental and skeletal development: a comparison of sibling pairs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:286-93.
• 18. Yang K, Zeng X, Yu M. A study on the difference of craniofacial morphology between oral and nasal breathing children. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2002;37:385-7.
• 19. Chung Leng Muñoz I, Beltri Orta P. Comparison of cephalometric patterns in mouth breathing and nose breathing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1167-72.
• 20. Asad S, Naeem S. CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIOUS VERTICAL DYSPLASIA ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS. POJ 2009;1:28-33.
• 21. Bahrou S, Hasan AA, Khalil F. Facial proportions in different mandibular rotations in class I individuals. Int Arab J Dent 2014;5:9-18.
• 22. Rizwan M, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. Reliability of the Existing Vertical Dysplasia Indicators In Assessing A Definitive Growth Pattern. Rev Latinoam Ortod Odontopediatría 2011;1-5. (Published: December 16, 2011) 23. Souki BQ, Lopes PB, Pereira TB, Franco LP, Becker HM, Oliveira DD. Mouth breathing children and cephalometric pattern: does the stage of dental development matter? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:837-41.
• 24. Freeman GL, Johnson S. Allergic Diseases In Adolescents: 1. Description of Survey; Prevalence of Allergy. Am J Dis Child 1964;107:549-59.
• 25. Juliano ML, Machado MA, Carvalho LB, Prado LB, do Prado GF. Mouth breathing children have cephalometric patterns similar to those of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2009;67:860-5.
• 26. Isaacson JR, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM, Worms FW. Extreme variation in vertical facial growth and associated variation in skeletal and dental relations. Angle Orthod 1971;41:219-29.
• 27. Ucar FI, Uysal T. Orofacial airway dimensions in subjects with Class I malocclusion and different growth patterns. Angle Orthod 2011;81:460-8.