Ruiz RAJ, Canseco JJ, Cuairán RV

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 214-218
PDF size: 158.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

It is stated in scientific literature that the entire craniofacial complex is influenced by the growth and displacement direction of the cranial base structures, at the same time exerting over them direct influence. Nevertheless, many times this is not the case, and this point is subject to great controversy. We must also bear in mind that studies have been carried out in population samples of different ethnic characteristics, facial biotypes, and growth types. For these reasons, a random sample of 80 cranial cephalometric radiographs were taken at the Orthodontic Department of the Hospital Infantil de Mexico Federico Gomez (HIMFG). Patients had not previously received orthopaedic or orthodontic treatment. Patients were divided according to skeletal class: 28 class I, 38 class II and 14 class III. In all patients, the N-S-Ar angle was measured. This angle indicates the inclination of the cranial base. Cases were divided into three types of angles: normal angles (120-125 °) associated to skeletal class I, open angles (› 125°) associated to skeletal class II, and closed angles (‹ 120 °) associated to skeletal class III). The aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between cranial base flexure and skeletal class. It was found that no significant relationship existed between cranial base flexure and skeletal class.

REFERENCES

1. Hopking GB, Houston WJB, James GB. The cranial base as an aetiological factor in maloclusión. Angle Orthod 1968; 38: 250-5.

2. Renfroe EW. A study of the facial patterns associated with Class I, Class II, division 1, and Class II division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1948; 18: 12-5.

3. Moss ML. Correlation of cranial base angulation with cephalic malformations and growth disharmonies of dental interest. NY State Dent 1955; 24: 452-4.

4. Björk A. Cranial base development. Am J Orthod 1958; 44: 498-506.

5. Enlow D. Crecimiento maxilofacial. 3a ed. p. 218-9. Editorial interamericana McGraw-Hill. México, D.F. 1990.

6. Andria LM, Leite LP, Prevatte TM, King, Lydia B. Correlation of the cranial base angle and its components with other dental/skeletal variables and treatment time. The Angle Orthodontist 2004; 74 (3): 361-6.

7. Dhopatkar, Ashish, Bhatia, Suren, Rock, Peter. An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist 2002; 72 (5): 456-63.

8. Nanda R, Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B. Role of cranial base flexure in developing sagital jaw discrepancies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 386-91.

9. Wilhelm BM, Beck FM, Lidral AC, Vig KWL. A comparison of cranial base growth in class I and class II skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 401-5.

10. Gregoret J, Tuber E. Ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática: diagnóstico y planificación. Barcelona: Editorial Espaxs; 2003: 175-98.

11. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 721-35.

12. Anderson DL, Popovich F. Correlations among craniofacial angles and dimensions in class I and class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1989; 59: 37-42.

13. Argyropoulos E, Sassouni V, Xeniotou A. A comparative cephalometric investigation of the Greek craniofacial pattern through 4,000 years. Angle Orthod 1989; 59: 195-204.