Association of dentoskeletal morphology with incisor inclination in angle class II patients: a retrospective cephalometric study

Head & Face Medicine

Carsten Lippold²  Peter Proff¹  Piero Römer¹  Christian Kirschneck¹ 

[1] Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany;Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of Muenster, Waldeyerstraße 30, 48149 Münster, Germany

关键词: Retrospective studies;    Tooth inclination;    Angle Class II;    Malocclusion;    Cephalometry;    Orthodontics;   

Others  :  813720
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-160X-9-24

 received in 2013-08-05, accepted in 2013-08-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify possible dentoskeletal parameters associated with variation of anterior tooth inclination in Angle Class II subdivisions.

Methods

Pre-treatment lateral radiographs of 144 Class II patients (68 males, 76 females) aged 9 to 17 years were classified for upper incisor inclination into three groups (proclined, normally inclined, retroclined) homogeneous for gender and skeletal jaw relationship. The effect of age on the 22 cephalometric variables was controlled by covariance analysis.

Results

Multivariate analysis of the cephalometric parameters indicated significant inter-group differences. Systematic associations with incisor inclination were revealed using rank correlation: Lower incisor proclination, Wits appraisal and gonial angle significantly decreased (0.04 ≥ p ≥ 0.002), while intercisal angle, mandibular total and corpus length and nasolabial angle increased (0.04 ≥ p ≥ 0.001) with decreasing incisor proclination.

Conclusions

Clear-cut classification criteria and control of confounding effects may clarify conflicting previous findings on dentoskeletal differences between Class II subdivisions in the mixed dentition. Only minor dentoskeletal differences appear to be associated with incisor inclination. The increased interincisal and nasolabial angle in Class II division 2 subjects are due to reclination of both upper and lower incisors. Jaw positions and chin prominence are not significantly different between the subdivisions. However, Wits appraisal is decreased in Class II division 2. The increased mandibular length observed in Class II division 2 requires further scrutinization.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kirschneck et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B: Cephalometric characteristics of class II, division 1 and class II, division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 1997, 67:111-120.
• [2]Lisson J, Pyka C: Determining skeletal parameters in angle classes II, division 1 and II, division 2. J Orofac Orthop 2005, 66:445-454.
• [3]Isik F, Nalbantgil D, Sayinsu K, Arun T: A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2006, 28:179-183.
• [4]Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, Dinbar A, Dinte A, Wasserstein A: Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of angle class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002, 72:251-257.
• [5]Lux C, Raeth O, Burden D, Conradt C, Komposch G: Sagittal and vertical growth of the jaws in class II, division 1 and class II, division 2 malocclusions during prepubertal and pubertal development. J Orofac Orthop 2004, 65:290-311.
• [6]Ehmer U: Klassifikation der kieferorthopädischen Befunde. In Praxis der Zahnheilkunde. Kieferorthopädie I. Bd. 11/1. Edited by Diedrich P. Munich, Germany: Urban und Schwarzenberg; 2000:107-120.
• [7]Riolo ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS: An atlas of craniofacial growth; monograph no. 2 craniofacial growth series. Center for Human Growth and Development: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; 1974.
• [8]Bhatia SN, Leighton BC: A manual of facial growth. A computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric data. London: Oxford University Press; 1993.
• [9]Schopf P: Kephalometrische „Normwerte” für die Stellung der Inzisivi — eine mögliche Ursache für den Misserfolg kieferorthopädischer Behandlungen? J Orofac Orthop 1988, 49:37-47.
• [10]Hasund A, Böe O, Jenatschke F, Norderval K, Thunold K, Wisth P: Clinical cephalometry for the Bergen technique. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen; 1974.
• [11]Segner D: Individualisierte Kephalometrie. 2nd edition. Hamburg, Germany: Eigenverlag; 1994.
• [12]Dahlberg G: Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.
• [13]Panagiotidis G, Witt E: The individualized ANB angle. J Orofac Orthop 1977, 38:408-416.
• [14]Jacobson A: Application of the Wits appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976, 70:179-189.
• [15]Lane PW, Nelder JA: Analysis of covariance and standardization as instances of prediction. Biometrics 1982, 38:613-621.
• [16]Tarter ME: Statistical curves and parameters: choosing an appropriate approach. Wellesley: A K Peters; 2000.
• [17]Wang SJ, Hung HM: Adaptive covariate adjustment in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2005, 15:605-611.
• [18]Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ: Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd edition. New York: W H Freeman; 1995.
• [19]Johnson WM: Adjustments to age. Med Ann Dist Columbia 1948, 17:664-667.
• [20]Phillips C, Preisser JS, White R Jr, Blakey GH, Haug RH: Prediction of periodontal pathology around third molars using linear mixed effects modeling. Community Dent Health 2008, 25:89-97.
• [21]Cantu G, Buschang P, Gonzalez J: Differential growth and maturation in idiopathic growth-hormone-deficient children. Eur J Orthod 1997, 19:131-139.
• [22]Janson G, Martins D, Tavano O, Dainesi E: Dental maturation in subjects with extreme vertical facial types. Eur J Orthod 1998, 20:73-78.
• [23]Harris EF: Effects of patient age and sex on treatment: correction of class II malocclusion with the Begg technique. Angle Orthod 2001, 71:433-441.
• [24]Smeets H: A roentgenocephalometric study of the skeletal morphology of class II, division 2 malocclusion in adult cases. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1962, 247-259.
• [25]Ingervall B, Lennartsson B: Cranial morphology and dental arch dimensions in children with angle class, division 2 malocclusion. Odontol Revy 1973, 24:149-160.
• [26]Kerr W, Miller S, Ayme B, Wilhelm N: Mandibular form and position in 10-year-old boys. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994, 106:115-120.
• [27]Gesch D: A longitudinal study on growth in untreated children with angle class II, division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop 2000, 61:20-33.
• [28]Hitchcock H: The cephalometric distinction of class II, division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1976, 69:447-454.
• [29]Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, Wasserstein A: Class II division 2 skeletal pattern (comment). Angle Orthod 1998, 68:104.
• [30]Fischer-Brandies H, Fischer-Brandies E, König A: A cephalometric comparison between angle class II, division 2 malocclusion and normal occlusion in adults. Br J Orthod 1985, 12:158-162.
• [31]Karlsen A: Craniofacial morphology in children with angle class II-1 malocclusion with and without deep bite. Angle Orthod 1994, 64:437-446.
• [32]Pancherz H, Zieber K: Dentoskeletal morphology in children with Deckbiss. J Orofac Orthop 1998, 59:274-285.
• [33]Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M: Class II, division 2 malocclusion: a heritable pattern of small teeth in well-developed jaws. Angle Orthod 1998, 68:9-20.
• [34]Backlund E: Overbite and the incisor angle. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1958, 277-286.
• [35]Solow B: The pattern of craniofacial associations. Acta Odontol Scand Suppl 1966, 46:1-174.
• [36]Ludwig M: A cephalometric analysis of the relationship between facial pattern, interincisal angulation and anterior overbite changes. Angle Orthod 1967, 37:194-204.
• [37]Simons ME, Joondeph DR: Changes in overbite: a ten-year post-treatment study. Am J Orthod 1973, 64:349-367.
• [38]Houston WJB: Incisor edge-centroid relationships and overbite depth. Europ J Orthod 1989, 11:139-143.
• [39]Dhopatkar A, Bhatia S, Rock P: An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002, 72:456-463.
• [40]Maj G, Lucchese F: The mandible in class II, division 2. Angle Orthod 1982, 52:288-292.
• [41]Houston WJB: A cephalometric analysis of angle class II, division 2 malocclusion in the mixed dentition. Dent Pract Dent Rec 1967, 17:372-376.
• [42]Demisch A, Ingervall B, Thueer U: Mandibular displacement in angle class II, division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992, 102:509-518.
• [43]Jacobson A: The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975, 67:123-130.
• [44]Arvystas M: Nonextraction treatment of severe class II, division 2 malocclusions. Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990, 97:510-521.
• [45]Karlsen A: Craniofacial growth differences between low and high MP-SN angle males: a longitudinal study. Angle Orthod 1995, 65:341-350.
• [46]Björk A: Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969, 55:585-599.
• [47]Chung CH, Wong WW: Craniofacial growth in untreated skeletal class II subjects: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2002, 122:619-626.
• [48]Skieller V: Cephalometric growth analysis in treatment of overbite: report of the congress. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc 1967, 147-157.
• [49]Björk A, Skieller V: Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible: a synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Europ J Orthod 1983, 5:1-46.
• [50]Björk A, Skieller V: Facial development and tooth eruption. Am J Orthod 1972, 62:339-383.
• [51]Rakosi T: An atlas and manual of cephalometric radiography. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1982.
• [52]Sassouni V: A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod 1969, 55:109-123.
• [53]Wallis S: Integration of certain variants of the facial skeleton in class II, division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1963, 33:60-67.