+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions



Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions



Angle Orthodontist 69(3): 225-230



Cephalometric superimposition on cranial base is the accepted method for evaluating mandibular displacement during orthodontic treatment and/or growth. However, assessing mandibular position relative to the maxillary base may yield different information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of regional superpositions (cranial versus maxillary) on interpreting mandibular displacement. Both methods were applied to pre- and posttreatment cephalograms of 22 growing children (12 female, 10 male) treated for Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Differences in linear and angular measurements of three mandibular landmarks (pogonion, gnathion, menton) between cranial and maxillary superpositions were statistically significant (p = 0.0001). Vertical displacement of these landmarks contributed significantly to the differences (p = 0.0001). The contribution of horizontal displacement was not statistically significant. The results support the proposition that, in growing children, posttreatment displacement of mandibular skeletal and dental components should be assessed by both maxillary and cranial base superimpositions. The maxilla is subject to rotational and translational changes during growth that may affect the position of the mandible relative to the maxilla in a way inconsistent with the mandibular displacement perceived upon cranial superposition. Since occlusion is directly associated with the positions of the maxillary and mandibular basal bones, the positions of these bones relative to each other is critical in assessing occlusal changes in individual patients.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 046009241

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10371427

DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0225:eodgao>2.3.co;2


Related references

Evaluation of Class II treatment by cephalometric regional superpositions versus conventional measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 128(5): 607-618, 2005

Class II treatment with fixed functional orthodontic appliances before and after the pubertal growth peak - a cephalometric study to evaluate differential therapeutic effects. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 70(6): 511-527, 2010

A comparison of three cephalometric analysis on the evaluation of orthodontic treatment. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 11(2): 97-100, 2004

Cephalometric evaluation of soft tissue in orthodontic treatment planning. Mondo Ortodontico 14(3): 303-309, 1989

A radiographic cephalometric consideration of facial growth during orthodontic treatment. Amer Jour Orthodont 39(5): 340-357, 1953

Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 20(3): 29-36, 2015

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical-orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 10(3): 173-180, 1995

Cephalometric evaluation of surgical orthodontic treatment for the correction of anterior cross-bites. American Journal of Orthodontics 76(2): 178-195, 1979

Research on Chinese orthodontic specialists' subjective evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 47(3): 134-138, 2013

Class II Division 1 malocclusion with severe overbite: cephalometric evaluation of the effects of orthodontic treatment. World Journal of Orthodontics 9(4): 319-328, 2009

Evaluation of posttreatment changes in Class II Division 1 patients after nonextraction orthodontic treatment: cephalometric and model analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 127(2): 219-223, 2005

Predicting of growth tendency with cephalometry. Cephalometric research comparing orthodontic treatment cases with four premolar extraction. Fogorvosi Szemle 100(1): 11-15, 2007

Orthodontic evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism based on the cephalometric analysis using the Segner-Hasund method. Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis 54(1): 82-93, 2009

Cephalometric evaluation of the predictability of bimaxillary surgical-orthodontic treatment outcomes in long face pattern patients: a retrospective study. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 18(5): 53-58, 2014

A cephalometric evaluation of pretreatment and post-treatment outcome using Tetragon analysis: a retrospective study. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 14(2): 238-243, 2014