Subscribe to RSS
3D Evaluation of the Relationship between Different Vertical Growth Patterns and Cranial Base AngulationsFunding None.
Objective This study aimed to compare cranial base angulations in subjects with high-angle, low-angle, and normal-angle vertical growth patterns using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Design This study is a retrospective clinical research.
Settings This study was carried out at the Dentistry Faculty of Eskisehir Osmangazi University.
Participants According to skeletal vertical face growth patterns, 78 subjects (48 females and 30 males, average age: 13.19 ± 1.73 years) were divided equally into three groups: high angle, low angle, and normal angle groups.
Main Outcome Measures Cephalometric images were derived from CBCT, and patients were classified according to the SN-GoGn angle (sella-nasion, gonion gnathion angle). Sagittal, axial, and coronal cranial base angulations were measured in three-dimensional (3D) CBCT images. Data were analyzed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality, Kruskal–Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests.
Results There were statistically significant differences between the low-angle and high-angle groups according to sagittal cranial base angulation parameters (p = 0.01). Conversely, there were no statistically significant differences between vertical facial growth patterns according to coronal and axial cranial angle variables (p > 0.05).
Conclusion According to the study results, there were no effects of cranial base angulations in two planes (coronal and axial) on different vertical skeletal growth patterns. In the sagittal cranial base angulation parameter, the high-angle group showed greater angulation values than the low-angle group. CBCT may be helpful for evaluating, diagnosing, and predicting 3D cranial base differences.
Received: 25 November 2019
Accepted: 27 April 2020
05 August 2020 (online)
© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Afrand M, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravère-Vich MO. Growth changes in the anterior and middle cranial bases assessed with cone-beam computed tomography in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151 (02) 342-350.e2
- 2 Currie K, Sawchuk D, Saltaji H, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravere M. Posterior cranial base natural growth and development: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2017; 87 (06) 897-910
- 3 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 2014; 146 (01) 21-32.e6
- 4 Sanggarnjanavanich S, Sekiya T, Nomura Y, Nakayama T, Hanada N, Nakamura Y. Cranial-base morphology in adults with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146 (01) 82-91
- 5 Dibbets JM. Morphological associations between the Angle classes. Eur J Orthod 1996; 18 (02) 111-118
- 6 Baccetti T, Antonini A, Franchi L, Tonti M, Tollaro I. Glenoid fossa position in different facial types: a cephalometric study. Br J Orthod 1997; 24 (01) 55-59
- 7 Dhopatkar A, Bhatia S, Rock P. An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002; 72 (05) 456-463
- 8 Proff P, Will F, Bokan I, Fanghänel J, Gedrange T. Cranial base features in skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 2008; 78 (03) 433-439
- 9 Bjerklin K, Ericson S. How a computerized tomography examination changed the treatment plans of 80 children with retained and ectopically positioned maxillary canines. Angle Orthod 2006; 76 (01) 43-51
- 10 Lai CS, Bornstein MM, Mock L, Heuberger BM, Dietrich T, Katsaros C. Impacted maxillary canines and root resorptions of neighbouring teeth: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35 (04) 529-538
- 11 Dagsuyu IM, Kahraman F, Oksayan R. Three-dimensional evaluation of angular, linear, and resorption features of maxillary impacted canines on cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 2018; 34 (01) 66-72
- 12 Okşayan R, Sökücü O, Yeşildal S. Evaluation of maxillary sinus volume and dimensions in different vertical face growth patterns: a study of cone-beam computed tomography. Acta Odontol Scand 2017; 75 (05) 345-349
- 13 Thiesen G, Pletsch G, Zastrow MD. et al. Comparative analysis of the anterior and posterior length and deflection angle of the cranial base, in individuals with facial Pattern I, II and III. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18 (01) 69-75
- 14 Klocke A, Nanda RS, Kahl-Nieke B. Role of cranial base flexure in developing sagittal jaw discrepancies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122 (04) 386-391
- 15 Gong A, Li J, Wang Z. et al. Cranial base characteristics in anteroposterior malocclusions: a meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (04) 668-680
- 16 Bhattacharya A, Bhatia A, Patel D, Mehta N, Parekh H, Trivedi R. Evaluation of relationship between cranial base angle and maxillofacial morphology in Indian population: a cephalometric study. J Orthod Sci 2014; 3 (03) 74-80