World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Angular Relationship between the Palatal Plane and the Anterior Cranial Baseline in Different Sagittal Skeletal Relationships: A Cephalometric Study

Mathew T Maliael

Keywords : Angular Relationship, Cephalometry, Sagittal skeletal relationship, Sella-nasion plane

Citation Information : Maliael MT. Angular Relationship between the Palatal Plane and the Anterior Cranial Baseline in Different Sagittal Skeletal Relationships: A Cephalometric Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (1):27-31.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2171

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The objective of this investigation was to quantify the relation between the anterior cranial base and the palatal plane [PP-sella-nasion (SN)] in subjects having different sagittal skeletal relationships. Materials and methods: Pretreatment cephalometric radiographs of 106 subjects were obtained. The cephalograms were then traced using the Facad software. The β angle measurement was done to evaluate the sagittal skeletal relationship of the subject. The cephalograms were then grouped into three based on the β angle measurements—groups I, II, and III. The angle formed by the palatal plane (PP) and cranial base intersecting was then measured and tabulated. The data was statistically evaluated using International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Results: The tabulated data was distributed normally. The overall mean angle between the PP and the cranial base of the included participants was 6.34° ± 4.51°. The difference in the PP-SN angle between groups was not statistically significant. There was no gender disparity observed. Conclusion: Although individual variability exists, the difference in PP-SN angle among the groups and between both genders was not significant statistically (p > 0.05). Clinical significance: The role of the PP-SN angle as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the management of malocclusion has to be explored further. Quantification of the PP-SN angle for the South Indian population is a first step in this direction. With the rising popularity of the use of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and orthognathic surgical interventions, the PP-SN angle could be a key determinant factor in the selection of either.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Marentette L. Introduction to radiographic cephalometry. By Alex Jacobson and Page W. Caufield, 137 pp, Illus, Lee & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA 1985. Head & Neck Surgery 1986;8:393–394. DOI: 10.1002/hed.2890080512
  2. Rakosi T, Jonas I, Graber TM. Orthodontic diagnosis. Thieme 1993;272
  3. Chandrasekar R, Chandrasekhar S, Sundari KKS, et al. Development and validation of a formula for objective assessment of cervical vertebral bone age. Prog Orthod 2020;21(1):38. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00338-0
  4. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960;46(10):721–735. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7
  5. Pandian KS, Krishnan S, Kumar SA, et al. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft-tissue facial profile of Indian adults. Indian J Dent Res 2018 Mar;29(2):137–143. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_496_16
  6. Mohan A, Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P, et al. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis—a cross-sectional study. BDJ Open 2021;7(1):22. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-021-00077-2
  7. Kamath MK, Arun AV. Comparison of cephalometric readings between manual tracing and digital software tracing: a pilot study. Int J Orthod 2016;7(4):135–138. DOI: 10.4103/2349-5243.197460
  8. Ravikumar P, Sivakumar A. Is tracing of anatomical structures essential for cephalometric analysis? a retrospective study. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2020;9(17):1442–1445. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2020/314
  9. Järvinen S. Relation of the Wits appraisal to the ANB angle: a statistical appraisal. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(5):432–435. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90134-5
  10. Hussels W, Nanda RS. Analysis of factors affecting angle ANB. Am J Orthod 1984; 85(5):411–423. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90162-3
  11. Holdaway RA. Changes in relationship of points A and B during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1956;42(3):176–193. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(56)90112-9
  12. Taylor CM. Changes in the relationship of nasion, point A, and point B and the effect upon ANB. Am J Orthod 1969;56(2):143–163. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90231-0
  13. Järvinen S. An analysis of the variation of the ANB angle: a statistical appraisal. Am J Orthod. 1985;87(2):144–146. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90024-7
  14. Järvinen S. An analysis of the variation of the ANB angle. Am J Orthod 1984;85:451–452. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90177-5
  15. Beatty EJ. A modified technique for evaluating apical base relationships. Am J Orthod 1975;68(3):303–315. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90238-9
  16. Moore AW. Observations on facial growth and its clinical significance. Am J Orthod 1959;45(6):399–423. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(59)80002-6
  17. Enlow DH. A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth. Am J Orthod 1966;52(4):283–299. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(66)90169-2
  18. Nanda RS. The rates of growth of several facial components measured from serial cephalometric roentgenograms. Am J Orthod 1955;41(9):658–673. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(55)90112-3
  19. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67(2):125–138. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2
  20. Freeman RS. Adjusting A-N-B angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod 1981;51(2):162–171. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0162:AAATRT>2.0.CO;2
  21. Arvind Tr P, Jain RK. Computed tomography assessment of maxillary bone density for orthodontic mini-implant placement with respect to vertical growth patterns. J Orthod 2021;48(4):392–402. DOI: 10.1177/14653125211020015
  22. Jacobson A. Application of the “Wits” appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976;70(2):179–189. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(76)90318-3
  23. Haynes S, Chau MN. The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(6):640–647. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70108-7
  24. Duran GS, Dindaroglu F, Gorgulu S, et al. Inconsistency between ANB angle and Wits appraisal in the Turkish population. Turkish J Orthod 2016;28(28):103–108. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00027R1
  25. Del Santo M Jr. Influence of occlusal plane inclination on ANB and Wits assessments of anteroposterior jaw relationships. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(5):641–648. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.025
  26. Rushton R, Cohen AM, Linney AD, et al. The relationship and reproducibility of angle ANB and the Wits appraisal. Br J Orthod 1991;18(3):225–231. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.18.3.225
  27. Richardson M. Measurement of dental base relationship. Eur J Orthod 1982;4(4):251–256. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/4.4.251
  28. Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P, Thanh HN, et al. A comparison of craniofacial characteristics between two different adult populations with class II malocclusion-a cross-sectional retrospective study. Biology (Basel) 2021;10(5):438. DOI: 10.3390/biology10050438
  29. Jajoo A, Agarkar SS, Sharma S, et al. Comparison of beta and ANB angles for evaluation of sagittal skeletal discrepancy: a cephalometric study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(6):739–742. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2328
  30. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(1):100–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026
  31. Kapadia RM, Diyora SD, Shah RB, et al. Comparative evaluation of yen angle and W angle with ANB angle, Wits appraisal, and beta angle for predicting sagittal jaw dysplasia: a cephalometric study. Int J Clin Dent Res 2017;1(1):26–31. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10060-0006
  32. Kannan S, Goyaliya A, Gupta R. Comparative assessment of sagittal maxillo-mandibular jaw relationship - a cephalometric study. JOHCD 2012;6(1):14–17. DOI: 10.5005/johcd-6-1-14
  33. Perinetti G, Ceschi M, Scalia A, et al. Cephalometric floating norms for the β angle and MMBP-Wits. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:8740731. DOI: 10.1155/2018/8740731
  34. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3-D imaging. Quintessence Publishing Company; 2006. 308 p.
  35. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39(10):729–755. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
  36. Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. Dentofacial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances. Mosby Incorporated; 1997. 523 p.
  37. Kerr WJ, Miller S, Dawber JE. Class III malocclusion: surgery or orthodontics? Br J Orthod 1992;19(1):21–24. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.19.1.21
  38. Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Lux CJ, Schuster G. Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: Orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(1):27–37. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.123632
  39. Nahoum HI. Vertical proportions and the palatal plane in anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod 1971;59(3):273–282. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90100-x
  40. Benyahia H, Azaroual MF, Garcia C, et al. Treatment of skeletal class III malocclusions: orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage? How to decide. Int Orthod 2011;9(2):196–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2011.03.005
  41. Eslami S, Faber J, Fateh A, et al. Treatment decision in adult patients with class III malocclusion: surgery versus orthodontics. Prog Orthod 2018;19(1):28. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0218-0
  42. Chung C-H, Mongiovi VD. Craniofacial growth in untreated skeletal class I subjects with low, average, and high MP-SN angles: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(6):670–678. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.004
  43. Dibbets JM. Morphological associations between the angle classes. Eur J Orthod 1996;18(2):111–118. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/18.2.111
  44. Maia FA, Janson G, Barros SE, et al. Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open-bite correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(3):254.e1–254.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.021
  45. Frost DE, Fonseca RJ, Turvey TA, et al. Cephalometric diagnosis and surgical-orthodontic correction of apertognathia. Am J Orthod 1980;78(6):657–669. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90205-5
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.