Alvarez VSM, Chávez RLK, Chacón UPR, Soldevilla GLC, Núñez DDF

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 343.22 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Determination of the SN-Frankfort angle has been a constant used for many decades with a value of 7°. However, several studies have refuted that statement, based on the influence of sociodemographic factors on the variation of this angle. On the other hand, the importance of its determination is crucial to achieve an accurate diagnosis.
Objective: Evaluate the variation of the SN-Frankfort angle according to the facial biotype of patients.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional observational retrospective study was conducted. The sample was 225 lateral cephalometric radiographs of patients aged 12-35 years attending the Orthodontics Service of Hipólito Unanue Hospital in the period 2014-2017. Inclusion criteria were complied with, and selection was made by simple random probability sampling. Manual tracing was performed to evaluate the cephalometric radiographs. Facial biotype was determined by the VERT index, and the SN-Frankfort angle was then obtained. Two statistical methods were used for agreement and reproducibility evaluation: The Kappa index for evaluation of the facial biotype and the interclass correlation coefficient for determination of the angle.
Results: Average SN-Frankfort angle was 10.46 ± 3.02° for the dolichofacial biotype, 10.12 ± 3.03° for the mesofacial biotype and 10.39 ± 3.48° for the brachifacial biotype. Female patients had greater SN-Frankfort angulation (10.69 ± 3.04) than male patients (9.73 ± 3.23); p = 0.026.
Conclusions: Variation was found in the SN-Frankfort angle according to the facial biotype, but those differences were not significant. Significantly greater SN-Frankfort angulation was found among female patients.

REFERENCES

1. Budiardjo SB, Karim AF, Indriati S, Wahono NA, Suharsini M, Fauziah E, et al. Length of anterior cranial base and Frankfort horizontal plane: A lateral cephalometric study in 11–16-year-old children. J Phys Conf Ser 2018;1073(2):22014.

2. Alves PV, Mazucheli J, Vogel CJ, Bolognese AM. A protocol for cranial base reference in cephalometric studies. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(3):211-5.

3. Castro-Saravia J, Gurrola-Martinez B, Casasa A, Rivero-Tames D. Análisis de Wits, inclinación del Plano Silla-Nasion en las relaciones intermaxilares. Rev Latin Orto y Odontop. 2008.

4. Romero-Maroto M, Nieto-Sánchez I, Míguez-Contreras M, López-de-Andrés A. Visual perception of skeletal class and biotype in Spain. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Jun 1;34(3):322-6.

5. Ricciardelli EJ. Embryology and anatomy of the cranial base. Clin Plast Surg. 1995 Jul;22(3):361-72.

6. Curioca Rocha SA, Portillo Guerrero G. Determinación clínica y radiográfica del somatotipo facial en pacientes pediátricos. Rev Odonto Mex. 2011;15(1):8-13.

7. Björk A, Palling M. Adolescent age changes in sagittal jaw relation, alveolar prognathy, and incisal inclination. Acta Odontol. 1955;12:201-32.

8. Ricketts RM, Schulhof RJ, Bagha L. Orientation Sella-Nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod. 1976;69(6):648-54.

9. Cossio L, López J, Rueda ZV, Botero-Mariaca P. Morphological configuration of the cranial base among children aged 8 to 12 years. BMC Res Notes. 2016 Jun [citado 2018 Nov 10];9(1):309-14. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4908802/ 10. Kavitha L, Karthik K. Comparison of cephalometric norms of caucasians and non-caucasians: A forensic aid in ethnic determination. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2012;4:53-5 .

10. Perillo L, Isola G, Esercizio D, Iovane M, Triolo G, Matarese G. Differences in craniofacial characteristics in Southern Italian children from Naples: a retrospective study by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):195-8.

11. Afrand M, Ling CP, Khosrotehrani S, Flores-Mir C, Lagravère-Vich MO. Anterior cranial-base time-related changes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014Jul;146(1):21-32.e6.

12. Jünger TH, Ruf S, Eisfeld J, Howaldt HP. Cephalometric assessment of sagittal jaw base relationship prior to orthognathic surgery: the role of anterior cranial base inclination. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2000;15(4):290-8.

13. Serrano Ortiz J, Ubilla Mazzinii W, Mazzini Torres F. Incidencia de los biotipos faciales mediante el análisis cefalométrico de Ricketts. Uso del VERT. Rev Cient Univ Odontol Dominic. 2016;3(1):14-24.

14. General Assembly of the World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):14-8.

15. Young JH, Kyung HH, Hong KK, Shin EN, Hye YS, Joo HL, et al. Constancy of the angle between the Frankfort horizontal plane and the sella-nasion line. Angle Ortho 2014;84(2):286-91.

16. Greiner P, Müller B, Dibbets J. The angle between the Frankfort horizontal and the sella-nasion line. Changes in porion and orbitale position during growth. J Orofac Orthop. 2004 May;65(3):217-22.

17. Huh YJ, Huh KH, Kim HK, Nam SE, Song HY, Lee JH, et al. Constancy of the angle between the Frankfort horizontal plane and the sella-nasion line: a nine-year longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 2014 Mar;84(2):286-91.

18. Govea LA, Ballesteros M. Relación entre el plano SN y el plano de Frankfort, según el biotipo facial. Rev Mex Orto. 2016;4(1):18-23.

19. Toledo JD, Cazar AM, Bravo-Calderón M. Correlación de la base del cráneo con el patrón facial y la posición sagital de los maxilares. Rev Latin Orto Odonto. 2014;1(1):5-10.

20. Calvo de Araújo M, Raphaelli-Nahás AC, Cotrim-Ferreira FA, Guedes PE. Estudo cefalométrico da correlação da anatomía da base craniana com o padrão facial e as bases apicais. R Dent Press Orto Ortop Fac. 2016;13(4):67-76.

21. Batran M, Soliman N, Wakil EL. The relationship between cranial base and maxillofacial morphology in Egyptian children. J Compara Hum Bio. 2008;59(1):287-300.