Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(02): 199-202
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.178311
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Cephalometric comparison of cesarean and normal births

Merve Goymen
1   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye
,
Tolga Topcuoglu
2   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zirve University, Gaziantep, Turkiye
,
Ali Murat Aktan
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye
,
Ozlem Isman
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare cephalometric variables of subjects with normal and cesarean births. Materials and Methods: Ninety age- and gender-matched patients, who were treated in Gaziantep University, Faculty of Dentistry Orthodontics Department were equally divided into normal and cesarean groups according to the birth methods reported by their mothers. To eliminate the negative effects of being different in terms of age and gender among parameters, control, and patient groups were matched in the present study. Pretreatment cephalometrics radiographs were used. Six measurements representing sagittal and vertical relationships were evaluated from pretreatment cephalograms using Dolphin Imaging Orthodontics Software was used in this issue by an orthodontist. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Student's t-test, and Mann–Whitney U-test were used for statistical comparisons. Results: A point-nasion-B point angle (ANB) and Wits values were higher in the normal group, while sella-nasion-A point angle, sella-nasion-B point angle, Frankfort horizontal-mandibular plane angle, and gonion-gnathion-SN plane angle values were higher in the cesarean group. However, the groups showed no significant differences (P > 0.05). ANB angle and Wits values showed high correlation. Conclusions: Within the study limitations, the results suggest that the birth method may not have a considerable effect on the development of the craniofacial skeletal system.

Key words:

Cesarean section - orthodontics - vaginal birth
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Evensen JP, Øgaard B. Are malocclusions more prevalent and severe now?. A comparative study of medieval skulls from Norway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 710-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Espeland LV, Ivarsson K, Stenvik A. A new Norwegian index of orthodontic treatment need related to orthodontic concern among 11-year-olds and their parents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20: 274-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish schoolchildren. Scand J Dent Res 1973; 81: 12-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ingervall B, Seeman L, Thilander B. Frequency of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in 10-year old children in Gothenburg. Sven Tandlak Tidskr 1972; 65: 7-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007; 1: 125-31
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mew JR. The postural basis of malocclusion: A philosophical overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 729-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Carlson DS. Theories of craniofacial growth in the postgenomic era. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 172-83
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 566-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cattaneo R, Monaco A, Streni O, Serafino V, Giannoni M. Birth delivery trauma and malocclusion. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005; 29: 185-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Beals KL, Smith CL, Dodd SM, Angel JL, Armstrong E, Blumenberg B. et al. Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines [and comments and reply]. Curr Anthropol 1984; 25: 301-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Otake M, Schull WJ. Radiation-related brain damage and growth retardation among the prenatally exposed atomic bomb survivors. Int J Radiat Biol 1998; 74: 159-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pirttiniemi P, Grön M, Alvesalo L, Heikkinen T, Osborne R. Relationship of difficult forceps delivery to dental arches and occlusion. Pediatr Dent 1994; 16: 289-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schoenwetter RF. A possible relationship between certain malocclusions and difficult or instrument deliveries. Angle Orthod 1974; 44: 336-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Janerich DT, Carlos JP. Birth characteristics and malocclusion. Pediatrics 1968; 42: 270-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tan EK, Lum SY, Fook-Chong SM, Teoh ML, Yih Y, Tan L. et al. Evaluation of somnolence in Parkinson's disease: Comparison with age- and sex-matched controls. Neurology 2002; 58: 465-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Elchalal U, Yagel S, Gomori JM, Porat S, Beni-Adani L, Yanai N. et al. Fetal intracranial hemorrhage (fetal stroke): Does grade matter?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 233-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kulkarni R, Lusher JM. Intracranial and extracranial hemorrhages in newborns with hemophilia: A review of the literature. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1999; 21: 289-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Heyman R, Heckly A, Magagi J, Pladys P, Hamlat A. Intracranial epidural hematoma in newborn infants: Clinical study of 15 cases. Neurosurgery 2005; 57: 924-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Martelius L, Janér C, Süvari L, Helve O, Lauerma K, Pitkänen O. et al. Delayed lung liquid absorption after cesarean section at term. Neonatology 2013; 104: 133-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sheldon RE, Escobedo MB, Cole D, Dayal A, Chazotte C, Minkoff H. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2364-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jain L, Dudell GG. Respiratory transition in infants delivered by cesarean section. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30: 296-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Barker PM, Olver RE. Invited review: Clearance of lung liquid during the perinatal period. J Appl Physiol 2002; 93: 1542-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: The paradox. Lancet 2006; 368: 1472-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000; 356: 1677-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: Application of an “intention-to-treat” model. Birth 2008; 35: 3-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Goumalatsos G, Varma R. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: A practical evidence-based approach. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2009; 19: 178-86
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 725-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chen MM, Hancock H. Women's knowledge of options for birth after caesarean section. Women Birth 2012; 25: e19-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sahin NH. Sectio-cesarean: Prevalence and consequences. Maltepe Univ J Nurs Sci Art 2009; 2: 93-8
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Lee HJ, Hong JT, Kim IS, Kwon JY, Lee SW. Analysis of measurement accuracy for craniovertebral junction pathology: Most reliable method for cephalometric analysis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2013; 54: 275-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Trahar M, Sheffield R, Kawamoto H, Lee HF, Ting K. Cephalometric evaluation of the craniofacial complex in patients treated with an intraoral distraction osteogenesis device: A preliminary report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 639-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jacobson A. Update on the Wits appraisal. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 205-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zamora N, Cibrián R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Study between anb angle and Wits appraisal in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18: e725-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Oktay H. A comparison of ANB, WITS, AF-BF, and APDI measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 99: 122-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar