Silva MR, Aguilar GG

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 66-72
PDF size: 205.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: We estimated the differences between height and facial divergence by sex in patients evaluated for orthodontic treatment in a Mexican sample. Material and methods: We used Silva’s cephalometric method to establish facial height and divergence observing their relationship by sex. The study included 483 cephalometric images of 196 men and 287 women aged 8 to 58 years. Results: Of the 483 cephalometric images analyzed, 16.8% presented normal or neutral facial height, 63.1% short facial height, and 19.8% increased facial height. The cephalometric method that we used directly relates facial divergence to mandibular divergence through angular measurement of the goniac angle. The results showed normo divergence in 53.6%, hypo divergence in 22.3%, and hyper divergence in 24% of individuals. The predominance in men was for short-face (48.7%) with mandibular hypo divergence (43.5%), whereas in women it was for short face (63.2%) with mandibular hyper divergence (62%). Conclusions: Facial height and divergence do not always coincide; divergence is associated with mandibular shape and not with facial height. Most of the patients had short face followed by long and neutral face.

REFERENCES

1. Lione R, Kiliaridis S, Noviello A, Franchi L, Antonarakis GS, Cozza P. Evaluation of masseter muscles in relation to treatment with removable bite-blocks in dolichofacial growing subjects: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151 (6): 1058-1064.

2. Horner KA, Behrents RG, Kim KB, Buschang PH. Cortical bone and ridge thickness of Hyperdivergent and hypodivergent adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142 (2): 170-178.

3. Sassouni VA. Roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental-relationships. Am J Orthod. 1955; 41 (10): 735-764.

4. Sadek MM, Sabet NN, Hassan IT. Alveolar bone mapping in subjects with different vertical facial dimensions. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37 (2): 194-201.

5. Silva MR. Sagittal cephalometric diagnosis using Power Point (Microsoft Office). Rev Mex Ortod. 2016; 4 (1): 9-17.

6. Franco LP, Soukiv BQ, Pereira TB, Gonzalves BHM, Pinto JA. Is the growth pattern in mouth breathers comparable with the counterclockwise? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144 (3): 341-348.

7. Murata S. Use of the centroid method of occlusion for studying the vertical and horizontal relationship of the mandible and maxilla. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29 (6): 600-604.

8. Sato S. Alteration of occlusal plane due to posterior discrepancy related to development of malocclusion introduction to denture frame analysis. Bulletin of Kanagawa Dental College. 1987; 15 (2): 115-123.

9. Tanaka EM, Sato S. Longitudinal alteration of the occlusal plane and development of different dentoskeletal frames during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134 (5): 602.e1-611.e1; discussion 602-603.

10. Arriola-Guillén LE, Del Castillo AA, Pérez-Vargas LF, Flores-Mir C. Influence of maxillary posterior discrepancy on upper molar vertical position and facial vertical dimensions in subjects with or without skeletal open bite. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38 (3): 251-258.

11. Wang XD, Zhang JN, Lui DW, Lei FF, Liu WT, Song Y et al. Nonsurgical correction using miniscrew-assisted vertical control of severe high angle with mandibular retrusion and gummy smile in an adult. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151 (5): 978-988.

12. Kouvelis G, Dritsas K, Doulis I, Kloukos DD, Gkantidis N. Effect of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions compared with nonextraction treatment on the vertical dimension of the face: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154: 175-187.

13. Legan H, Burstone C. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1980; 38 (10): 744-751.

14. Björk A. Follow-up X-ray study of the individually variation in growth occurring between 12 and 20 years of and Its relation to case and face brain development. Am J Orthod. 1955; 41 (3): 199-255.