Citation Information :
Maniyar N, Prakash AT, Kumar HK. Variation in the Dimensions of the Atlas Vertebra among Patients with Class I, II, and III Skeletal Bases: A Cephalometric Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (5):409-413.
Aim: To quantify and compare the variation in the dimensions of the atlas vertebra among patients with classes I, II, and III skeletal bases on a lateral cephalogram.
Materials and methods: Lateral cephalograms of 75 patients aged 19–43 years were evaluated. Subjects were divided into three groups (25 each) based on their A point, nasion, B point (ANB) angle. Group I included class I subjects with ANB angle 0–4°, group II included class II subjects with ANB angle >4°, and group III included class III subjects with ANB of <0°. Three linear measurements, that is, the anteroposterior dimension, height of the slimmest part of the posterior neural arch, and height of the dorsal arch were used to assess the dimensions of the atlas vertebra. The data were recorded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed.
Results: Mean difference in the anteroposterior dimension of the atlas vertebra was statistically significant with the highest dimension in the class II group followed by classes I and III (p < 0.001) whereas, the mean height of the dorsal arch was found to be the highest in the class III group followed by classes I and II (p < 0.000).
Conclusion: There are variations in the anteroposterior dimension and height of the dorsal arch of the atlas vertebra among patients with classes I, II, and III skeletal bases.
Clinical significance: Dimensional measurements of the atlas vertebra and its specific variations in patients with different skeletal base patterns performed on a lateral cephalogram itself give an endowment to study the morphology of the atlas vertebra in routine clinical status quo without the requisite of any added diagnostic investigations such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Understanding of such variances can be integrated during diagnosis and treatment planning to take suitable preventive and interceptive procedures in any developing patterns of malocclusion.
Baydaş B, Yavuz I, Durna N, et al. An investigation of cervicovertebral morphology in different sagittal skeletal growth patterns. Eur J Orthod 2004;26(1):43–49. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.1.43
Huggare J. Association between morphology of the first cervical vertebra, head posture, and craniofacial structures. Eur J Orthod 1991;13(6):435–440. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/13.6.435
Kylämarkula S, Huggare J. Head posture and the morphology of the first cervical vertebra. Eur J Orthod 1985;7(3):151–156. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/7.3.151
Huggare J. The first cervical vertebra as an indicator of mandibular growth. Eur J Orthod 1989;11(1):10–16. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035959
Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Anomalies of the cervical vertebrae in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion and horizontal maxillary overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(2):188.e15–e20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.018
Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Cervical column morphology in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion and mandibular overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(4):427.e7–e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.019
Solow B, Siersbaek-Nielsen S, Greve E. Airway adequacy, head posture, and craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod 1984;86(3): 214–223. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90373-7
Sonnesen L, Bakke M, Solow B. Temporomandibular disorders in relation to craniofacial dimensions, head posture and bite force in children selected for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2001;23(2):179–192. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.2.179
Watanabe M, Yamaguchi T, Maki K. Cervical vertebra morphology in different skeletal classes. A three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation. Angle Orthod 2010;80(4):531–536. DOI: 10.2319/100609-557.1
Oh E, Ahn SJ, Sonnesen L. Ethnic differences in craniofacial and upper spine morphology in children with skeletal class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2018;88(3):283–291. DOI: 10.2319/083017-584.1
Kjaer I. Orthodontics and foetal pathology: a personal view on craniofacial patterning. Eur J Orthod 2010;32(2):140–147. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp059
Gjørup H, Sonnesen L, Beck-Nielsen SS, et al. Upper spine morphology in hypophosphatemic rickets and healthy controls: a radiographic study. Eur J Orthod 2014;36(2):217–225. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt050
Dargahwala HS, Daigavane PT, SD V, et al. Comparison of cervical vertebral body volume in class II vertical and class II horizontal cases with class I cases using 3D-DVT. J Ind Orthodont Soc 2020;54(4): 332–337. DOI: 10.1177/0301574220947418
Cenzato N, Nobili A, Maspero C. Prevalence of dental malocclusions in different geographical areas: scoping review. Dent J (Basel) 2021;9(10):117. DOI: 10.3390/dj9100117
Ronaldo GV, Mohri T, Morita S, et al. Cephalometric study on the morphology of the first cervical vertebra to craniofacial structure. Part 1: is there any relationship? Niigata Dent J 1996;26:13–24.
Fleming PS. Timing orthodontic treatment: early or late? Aust Dent J 2017;62 Suppl 1:11–19. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12474
Bhat ZI, Naik CR, Rahalkar JS. Early intervention in skeletal class II and dental class II division I malocclusion. APOS Trends Orthod 2013;3(4):121–127. DOI: 10.4103/2321-1407.117380