medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2016, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2016; 4 (3)

Lower incisor inclination in relation to facial biotype in skeletal Class I patients

Mora HR, Vera SME, Uribe-Querol E

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 159-164
PDF size: 231.88 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The lower incisor and its position in the arch are considered of vital importance when planning orthodontic treatment due to its effects on aesthetics and treatment stability. Facial biotype plays an important role in diagnosis and orthodontic treatment planning. Objective: of this study was to compare the lower incisor inclination of each facial biotype in patients whose maxillomandibular sagital relationship was class I as assessed by Ricketts lateral cephalometry. Material and methods: 100 lateral headfilms of class I skeletal patients were selected and classified according to VERT’s facial biotype and the lower incisor inclination to the A-Pog plane was measured. Results: showed that incisor inclination between dolichofacial and mesofacial patients is not different, but among brachyfacial and dolichofacial there were statistically significant differences, as it happens between mesofacial and brachyfacial. In dolichofacial patients, there is more incisor inclination than in brachyfacial patients. Conclusion: that dental inclinations vary according to facial biotype, so diagnosis is essential in order to make the correct choice of appliances. When treating brachyfacial patients a reduced lower incisor inclination should be considered compared to dolichofacial patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Ricketts RM. A foudation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthodontic. 1960; 46 (5): 330-357.

  2. Corelius M, Linder-Aronson S. The relationship between incisor inclination and various reference lines. Angle Orthod. 1976; 46: 111-117.

  3. Hernández-Sayago E, Espinar-Escalona E, Barrera-Mora JM, Ruiz-Navarro MB, Llamas-Carreras JM, Solano-Reina E. Lower incisor position in different malocclusions and facial patterns. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013; 18 (2): e343-350.

  4. Harvold EP. The role of function in the etiology and treatment of malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1968; 54 (12): 883-898.

  5. Bibby RE. Incisor relationship in different skeletofacial patterns. Angle Orthod. 1980; 50 (1): 41-44.

  6. Bjork A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963; 42: 400-411.

  7. Enlow DH, Kuroda T, Lewis AB. Intrinsic craniofacial compensations. Angle Orthod. 1971; 41 (14): 271-285.

  8. Sinclair PM, Little RM. Dentofacial maturation of untreated normals. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 146-156.

  9. Casko JS, Shepherd WB. Dental and skeletal variation within the range of normal. Angle Orthod. 1984; 54 (1): 5-17.

  10. Kim JY, Lee SJ, Kim TW, Nahm DS, Chang YI. Classification of the skeletal variation in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75: 311-319.

  11. Ishikawa H, Nakamura S, Iwasaki H, Kitazawa S, Tsudaka H, Sato Y. Dentoalveolar compensation related to variations in sagittal jaw relationships. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69: 534-538.

  12. Knösel M, Attin R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Sadat-Khonsari R. Cephalometric assessment of the axial inclination of upper and lower incisors in relation to the third-order angle. J Orofac Orthop. 2007; 68: 199-209.

  13. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66: 95-109.

  14. Gregoret J. Ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática. Diagnóstico y planificación. Ed. ESPAXS. España 2000. pp. 135-173.

  15. Ricketts RM. Técnica bioprogresiva de Ricketts. El tratamiento ortodóntico con arco recto. Ortodoncia y Cirugía Ortognática.

  16. Schulhof RJ, Allen RW, Walters RD, Dreskin M. The Mandibular dental arch: part I, lower incisor position. Angle Orthod. 1977; 47: 280-287.

  17. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1946; 32: 175-230.

  18. Hassan S, Shaikh A, Fida M. Effect of incisor inclination changes on cephalometric points A and B. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015; 27 (2): 268-273.

  19. Kamak G, Kamak H, Keklik H, Gurel HG. The effect of changes in lower incisor inclination on gingival recession. Scientific World Journal. 2015; 2015: 193206.

  20. Jabbal A, Cobourne M, Donaldson N, Bister D. Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38 (2): 184-189.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com