medigraphic.com
Órgano Ofical de la Facultad de Estomatología de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

2019, Number 62

<< Back Next >>

Oral 2019; 20 (62)

Reference values for sagittal measures of dento craniomaxillar relations on a southeast Mexican population

Mena-Brito JI, Limonchi-Palacio LV, Lehmann-Mendoza JM, Bulnes-López RM, de la Cruz-González C

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 1690-1693
PDF size: 251.75 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. Cephalometry is a helpful method for diagnosis in orthodontics, it has become an essential tool for treatment of maxillomandibular, skeletal and dental abnormalities. Dento craniomaxillar features of southeast Mexican population are different to those on the anglo-saxon population, in which studies to obtain reference values are based. Objective. To know reference value measures of saggital dento craniomaxillar relations in a southeast Mexican population. Materials and method. In a transversal, prospective observational study, and by a convenience sample of students of dentistry in UJAT, a sample of 14 individuals was obtained who fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria, and presented an ideal occlusion. Lateral cranial radiographs were analyzed with a cephalometric study software. Cefax version 6.0.3. Results. It was obtained a, average measure of 5.5 ± 2° for SNA angle (Steiner 2 ± 2°), 68.2 ± 4.5o for the IS/PP angle (Steiner 70 ± 2°), and 100+/-3.5° for the II/Go-Gn angle (Steiner 90 ± 2°). Discussion. Different results were found to those proposed in original researches, mainly in vertical maxillary and dental horizontal relationships, which confirms us that the studied population presents a physiological upper and lower protrusion and proclination, as a genetic functional adaptation. Therefore, to have reference values based in each population is necessary to get a more accurate diagnosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. 2013: 184-99.

  2. Bishara Samir E. Textbook of Orthodontics. Philadelphia, 2001: 98-125.

  3. Bishara Samir E, García Fernández A. Cephalometric compasisons of the dentofacial relationships of two adolescent populations from Iowa and northern Mexico. AM J Orthod. 1995: 88(4): 314-22.

  4. Guardado E Mariano, Queipo Gloria, Meraz R Marcos. Diversidad genética en la población mexicana: Utilización de marcadores de ADN. Rev Med Hosp Gen Mex 2008; 71(3): 162-74.

  5. Sood P, Verma SK, Negi KS, Kaundal JR, Sood S. Cranifacial morphology of Upper Shimla Hill Population - A cephalometric study. Orthod Waves 2015; 74(1): 1-9.

  6. Al-Awwad A, Brian Preston C, Al-Jewair TS, Al-Awwad M, Tabbaa S. Cephalometric Norms for Kuwaiti Adults: A preliminary study Orthod Waves 2014; 73(4): 136-45.

  7. Arcieri MJ, López G, Romeo M, Soto C, Villar AI, Domínguez D. Is Rickett’s chephalogram applicable in different populations? Actas Odontológicas 2013; 10(2): 12-18.

  8. Uysal T, Sari T. Posteroanterior cephalometric norms in Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127(3): 324-32.

  9. Aldeess AM. Lateral cephalometric norms for Saudi adults: a meta-analysis. Saudi Dent J 2011; 23(1): 3-7.

  10. Menéndez LM. Estudio comparativo entre mestizas y caucásicos mediante el análisis cefalométrico de Ricketts. Odontol Sanmarquina 2009; 12(2): 66-69.

  11. Rivas RG, Rojas GAR. Estudio cefalométrico de una población mexicana y su comparación con poblaciones de otras regiones. Oral 2009; 10(30): 488-93.

  12. Balut Gonzalez M, Sugiyama Raymond M, et al. Establishing cephalometric norms for a Mexican population using Ricketts, Steiner, Tweed and Arnett analyses. APOS Trends in Orthodontics 2013; 3(6): 171-77.

  13. Sardinas Valdés M, Martínez Brito I, Casas Acosta J. Estudio cefalométrico comparativo para diagnóstico del tipo de crecimiento facial. Rev Cubana Ortod 2001; 16(1): 24-29.

  14. Bañuelos Chao IP, Alvarado-Torres A, Ito-Arai J. Diferencias cefalométricas obtenidas en un caso tratado con la técnica de Tip Edge. Rev Tamé 2013; 1(3): 83-89.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com