Citation Information :
Baijal R, Bansal P, Singla S, Goel R, Arora K, Choudhary S. Cephalometric Comparison of Dentofacial Variables in Class I and Class II Jaw Bases: A Study for Different Growth Patterns. World J Dent 2022; 13 (S1):S14-S18.
Aim: To compare six dentofacial variables among different growth patterns in skeletal class I and class II jaw bases in a lateral cephalogram.
Materials and methods: The sample consisted of 120 lateral cephalograms of patients with ages ranging from 18 to 35 years. The sample was divided equally on the basis of ANB angle, Wits appraisal, and beta angle into skeletal class I (group I, n = 60), and class II jaw bases (group II, n = 60). Each group was then further divided into average (SN–MP 28–32°), horizontal (SN–MP <28°), and vertical growth patterns (SN–MP >32°). Hence, there were a total of six groups with 20 cephalograms each. The six parameters: interincisal angle (IIA), intermolar angle (IMA), inclination of symphysis (ISY), antegonial notch depth (AGN), lower anterior facial height (LAFH), and ramus height (RH) were traced, and a comparison was made among different growth patterns in class I and class II jaw bases. Statistical analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc Bonferroni test.
Results: Ramus height (RH) and AGN show an insignificant difference between class I and class II jaw bases irrespective of growth pattern. LAFH is significantly increased for class II jaw bases, and ISY is more for class I jaw bases for normodivergent and hypodivergent patterns. IIA and IMA are significantly more for class I jaw bases for normodivergent and hypodivergent growth patterns, respectively.
Conclusion: There is a suggestive effect of anteroposterior jaw base relationship on the parameters considered in the study which were formerly considered to be influenced only by growth patterns.
Clinical significance: From a clinical perspective, in an individual seeking orthodontic treatment, the decision to extract, anchorage preparation, biomechanics applied, and period of retention are dependent on different growth patterns and the anteroposterior relationship of jaw bases which is shown to be influenced by the parameters considered in this study.
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. PMID: 22509114; PMCID: PMC3327496.
Kim J, Lee S, Kim T, et al. Classification of the skeletal variation in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 2005;75(3):311–319. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[311:COTSVI]2.0.CO;2
Bishara SE, Peterson LC, Bishara EC. Changes in facial dimensions and relationships between the ages of 5 and 25 years. Am J Orthod 1984;85(3):238–252. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90063-0
Bjork A. Prediction of the mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55(6):585–599. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90036-0
Davidovitch M, Eleftheriadi I, Kostaki A, et al. The use of Bjork's indications of growth for evaluation of extremes of skeletal morphology. Eur J Orthod 2016;38(6):555–562. DOI: 10.10 93/ejo/cjv084
Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Diagnostic performance of various cephalometric parameters for the assessment of vertical growth pattern. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21(4):41–49. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.4.041-049.oar
Roy AS, Tandon P, Chandna AK, et al. Jaw morphology and vertical facial types: a cephalometric appraisal. J Orofac Res 2012;2:131–138. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10026-1029
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
Jacob HB, Buschang PH. Mandibular growth comparisons of class I and class II division 1 skeletofacial patterns. Angle Orthod 2014;84(5):755–761. DOI: 10.2319/100113-719.1
Riesmeijer AM, Prahl-Andersen B, Mascarenhas AK, et al. A comparison of craniofacial class I and class II growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(4):463–471. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.012
Ishikawa H, Nakamura S, Iwasaki H, et al. Dentoalveolar compensation related to variations in sagittal jaw relationships. Angle Orthod 1999;69(6):534–538. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0534:DCRTVI>2.3.CO;2
Andria LM, Leite LP, Dunlap AM, et al. Mandibular first molar relation to variable lower face skeletal components. Angle Orthod 2007;77(1):21–28. DOI: 10.2319/R.1
Gowda RS, Raghunath N, Sahoo KC, et al. Comparative study of mandibular morphology in patients with hypodivergent and hyperdivergent growth patterns: a cephalometric study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2013;47(4):377–381. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1191
Al-Khateeb SN, Maaitah EFA, Alhaija ESA, et al. Mandibular symphysis morphology and dimensions in different anteroposterior jaw relationships. Angle Orthod 2014;84(2):304–309. DOI: 10.2319/030513-185.1
Jain S, Puniyani P, Saifee A. Mandibular symphysis morphology and lower incisor angulation in different anteroposterior jaw relationships and skeletal growth patterns—a cephalometric study. Med Pharm Rep 2020;93(1):97–104. DOI: 10.15386/mpr-1356
Yassir A. Ramus height and its relationship with skeletal and dental measurements. J Oral Res 2013;1(1):4–8. DOI: 10.12816/0012186
Gupta S, Dhingra PS, Chatha S. A study of comparison and correlation between antegonial notch depth, symphysis morphology, and ramus morphology among different growth patterns in Angle's class II division 1 malocclusion. Indian J Dent Sci 2018;10(1):21–25. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_109_17
Aki T, Nanda RS, Currier GF, et al. Assessment of symphysis morphology as a predictor of the direction of mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106(1):60–69. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70022-2