Cephalometric Norms for Orthognathic Surgery in Kerala Population
Background and objectives: The successful treatment of orthognathic surgical patient is dependent on careful diagnosis. The first step in the diagnosis of the patient for orthognathic surgery is to determine the nature of the skeletal, dental and soft tissue defects. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery (COGS) analysis by Burstone and colleagues is especially adapted for the diagnosis and treatment planning of orthognathic surgery cases. Burstone and colleagues' COGS analysis are based on Caucasian whites; they may not be applicable as a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of Kerala population patients. Therefore it has become important to determine the cephalometric parameters for this ethnic group.
Methodology: Cephalometric radiographs of 50 Keralite adults (25 Males and 25 Females) were analysed who met criteria of the study. The Mean values of various skeletal, dental, angular and linear measurements of Keralites were compared with the White Americans values, originally obtained by Burstone.
Results: Statistically significant differences were found in the Keralite samples, who had a greater Anterior and Posterior Cranial base length, Mandibular protrusion, Lower anterior facial heights, Anterior and Posterior Dental heights, Proclined Upper and Lower incisor with less Prominent Chin in comparison to Caucasian.
Interpretation and conclusion: This is indicative of disparity between cephalometric norms of Caucasians and Keralites. However conclusions can't be drawn from a single study, hence further studies to establish the cephalometric norms for different ethnic groups across the country may be advisable.
Received: 26 October 2016
Accepted: 02 February 2017
22 April 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 Cotton, W. N., Takano, W. S., and Wong, W. W.: The Downs Analysis Applied to Three Other Ethnic Groups. Angle Orthod, 21:213-220, 1951.
- 2 Haralabakis, H.: Familial Resem¬blances in Craniofacial Greek Families. Abst. In A. J. Ortho., 1954.
- 3 Altemus, L. A. A Comparison of Cephalofacial Relationships. Angle Orthod. 30:223-240, 1960.
- 4 Kotak, V. B, Cephalometric Evaluation of Indian Girls with Neutral Occlusion. J.A.LD.A., 36:183, 1964.
- 5 Margolis, H. L: A Basic Facial Pattern and its Application in Clinical Orthodontics. A. J. Ortho., 33:631-641, 1947,
- 6 Tweed, C. H.: The Frankfort-Mandibular Incisor Angle (FMIA) in Orthodontic Diagnosis, Treatment Planning1 and Prognosis. Angle Orthod, 24:121-169, 1954.
- 7 Downs, W. B.: Variation in Facial Relationships: Their Significance in Treatment and Prognosis. A. J. Ortho., 34:812-840, 1948.
- 8 Sassouni V.: RoentgenographsCepholametric Analysis of Cephalo- Facial-Dental Relationships. A. Ortho., 41:735-764, 1955.
- 9 Coben, S. E.: The Integration of Facial Skeletal Variants. A. J. Ortho., 41:407-434, 1955.
- 10 Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, et al: Cephalometric for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 36:269, 1978
- 11 Legan HL, Burstone CJ: Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38: 744, 1980
- 12 Nanda R, Nanda RS. Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of North Indians. Angle Orthod: 1969; 39; 23-8.
- 13 Abhilasha O Yadav, Chanjyot Singh Walia, Rajiv M Borle, Kiran H Chaoji, RiteshRajan, Abhay N Datarkar: Cephalometric norms for Central Indian population using Burstone and Legan analysis. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 22(1), 2011
- 14 Thomas R. Flynn, Riccardo I Ambrogio, and Samuel J. Zeichner, Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in Black American Adults. J Oral MaxillfacSurg 47:30-38, 1989
- 15 Rafael E. Alcalde, TokiariJinno, M Anthony Pogrel, and Tomohiro Matsumura, Cephalometric norms for Japanese Adult. J Oral MaxillfacSurg 56:129-134,1998
- 16 Fonesca RJ, Klein WD: A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 73: 152, 1978