World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Mandibular Morphological Characteristics in Orthognathic and Retrognathic Mandible

Murali Patla Shivarama Bhat, Krishna Nayak Uppinagadi Shroof, Veena Shetty, Vinayak B Kamath, Yatishkumar S Josh, Vidya G Doddawad

Keywords : Mandible, Morphological, Retrognathic

Citation Information : Bhat MP, Shroof KN, Shetty V, Kamath VB, Josh YS, Doddawad VG. Evaluation of Mandibular Morphological Characteristics in Orthognathic and Retrognathic Mandible. World J Dent 2023; 14 (2):155-160.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2164

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-04-2023

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


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the morphological variation in different parts of the mandible in subjects with the orthognathic and retrognathic mandible. Materials and methods: A total of 100 subjects were selected, aged between 18 and 30 years. The subjects were divided into the orthognathic mandible (group I) and the retrognathic mandible (group II) group based on the lateral cephalometric measurements. The mandibular morphology, that is, body, ramus, condyle, chin size, anterior and posterior dental height, and gonial angle (upper and lower gonial angle), were assessed using lateral cephalogram in both group I and group II individuals. Results: Statistically significant smaller mandibular body length, ramus height, ramus width, chin size, and posterior dentoalveolar height were observed in the retrognathic mandibular subjects compared to the orthognathic mandible subjects. Condylar process height, condyle width, lower anterior dental height, gonial angle, upper gonial angle, and lower gonial angle did not show statistically significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: The results showed that mandibular body length, ramus height, ramus width, chin size, and posterior dentoalveolar height were smaller in retrognathic mandibular subjects when compared to the orthognathic mandible subjects and were statistically significant. Clinical significance: Assessment of morphological characteristics of the mandible in different skeletal malocclusion will provide a better guide in clinical diagnosis and treatment planning and thus help to evaluate the prognosis of orthodontic treatment.


PDF Share
  1. Precious D, Delaire J. Balanced facial growth: a schematic interpretation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;63(6):637–644. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(87)90360-4
  2. Gardner E, Gray DJ, O'Rahilly R. Anatomy: A Regional Study of Human Structure. 6th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company. 1978.
  3. Let A, Corradi LM. Mandible: evaluation of its morphology, aging process and sexual dimorphism for aesthetic treatment purpose. J Dermat Cosmetol 2021;5(3):42–46. DOI: 10.15406/jdc.2021.05.00182
  4. Zandi M, Shokri A, Mollabashi V, et al. Anatomical characteristics of mandibular bone in skeletal class i, ii and iii patients by using cone beam computed tomography images in an Iranian population. Braz Dent Sci 2021;24(2):1–12. DOI: 10.14295/bds.2021.v24i2.2475
  5. Zawawi KH, Alsulaimani FF, Al-Dharrab AA, et al. Morphological features of class I, II and III malocclusions of Saudi adolescents. Saudi J Biol Sci 2021;28(6):3534–3539. DOI: 10.13039/501100011665
  6. Bosmana AM, Moisikb SR, Dediub D, et al. Talking heads: morphological variation in the human mandible over the last 500 years in the Netherlands. Homo 2017;68(5):329–342. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchb.2017.08.002
  7. Ouni I, Ammar S, Charfeddine A, et al. Evaluation of condylar changes in relation to various malocclusions: a systematic review. Saudi J Oral Sci 2021;8(3):129–138. DOI: 10.4103/sjoralsci.sjoralsci_25_21
  8. McNamara JA. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981;51(3):177–201. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0177:COCIMI>2.0.CO;2
  9. Bishara SE. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(6):661–673. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70227-6
  10. Craig EC. The skeletal patterns characteristic of class I and class II division 1 malocclusions in norma lateralis. Angle Orthod 1951;21(1):44–56. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1951)021<0044:TSPCOC>2.0.CO;2
  11. Hallikainen D, Iizuka T, Lindqvist C. Cross-sectional tomography in evaluation of patients undergoing sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1269. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90225-o
  12. Gilmore WA. Morphology of the adult mandible in class II, division 1 malocclusion and in excellent occlusion. Angle Orthod 1950;20(3):137–146. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1950)020<0137:MOTAMI>2.0.CO;2
  13. Blair SE. A cephalometric roentgenographic appraisal of the skeletal morphology of class I, class II, division 1 and class II, division 2 (angle) malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1954;24:106. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1954)024<0106:ACRAOT>2.0.CO;2
  14. Uzuner FD, Aslan BI, Dincer M. Dentoskeletal morphology in adults with class I, class II division 1, or class II division 2 malocclusion with increased overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;156(2): 248–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.006
  15. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, et al. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978;36(4):269–277.
  16. Mangla R, Singh N, Dua V, et al. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(3):200–206. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.86458
  17. Markic G, Müller L, Patcas R, et al. Assessing the length of the mandibular ramus and the condylar process: a comparison of OPG, CBCT, CT, MRI, and lateral cephalometric measurements. Eur J Orthod 2015;37(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cju008
  18. Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, et al. Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of angle class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002;72(3):251–257. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0251:PCCOCI>2.0.CO;2
  19. Lv W, Nie Q, Gu Y. Three-dimensional analysis of mandibular characteristics in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion and chin deviation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;160(3):392–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.037
  20. Ali AA. Mcnamara's cephalometric analysis for Iraqi population in Mosul city. Int J Enhanc Res Sci Technol Eng 2014;3:287–299.
  21. Ardani IG, Sanjaya ML, Sjamsudin J. Cephalometric characteristic of skeletal Class II malocclusion in Javanese Population at Universitas Airlangga Dental Hospital. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(Suppl 2):S342–S346. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_465_18
  22. Chen H, Hsiao S, Lee K. Analysis of facial skeletal morphology: nasal bone, maxilla, and mandible. BioMed Res Int 2021;2021: 5599949. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5599949
  23. Stahl F, Baccetti T, Franchi L, et al. Longitudinal growth changes in untreated subjects with class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):125–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.028
  24. Ribeiro DPB, Gandelmann IHA, Medeiros PJ. Comparison of mandibular rami width in patients with prognathism and retrognathia. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2006;64(10):1506–1509. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.07.001
  25. Gomes AS, Lima EM. Mandibular growth during adolescence. Angle Orthod 2006;76(5):786–790. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0786:MGDA]2.0.CO;2
  26. Esenlik E, Sabuncuoglu FA. Alveolar and symphysis regions of patients with skeletal class II division 1 anomalies with different vertical growth patterns. Eur J Dent 2012;6(2):123–132. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698941
  27. Park W, Kim B, Yu H, et al. Architectural characteristics of the normal and deformity mandible revealed by three-dimensional functional unit analysis. Clin Oral Invest 2010;14(6):691–698. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0349-2
  28. El-Dawlatly MM, Salah Fayed MM, Mostafa YA. Deep overbite malocclusion: analysis of the underlying components. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142(4):473–480. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.04.020
  29. Ammanna S, Rodrigues A, Shetty NS, et al. A tomographic study of the mandibular condyle position in partially edentulous population. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(1):68–73. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1637
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.