The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences in the mandibular premolar positions in Angle Class I subjects with different vertical facial types: A cone-beam computed tomography study

  • Duan, Jun (Department of Stomatology, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Deng, Feng (Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Li, Wan-Shan (Department of Stomatology, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Li, Xue-Lei (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Zheng, Lei-Lei (Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Li, Gui-Yuan (Department of Stomatology, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Bai, Yan-Jie (Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University)
  • Received : 2014.08.17
  • Accepted : 2014.11.24
  • Published : 2015.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the positions of the mandibular premolars in Angle Class I subjects according to vertical facial type. The results will provide a theoretical basis for predicting effective tooth movement in orthodontic treatment. Methods: Cephalometric parameters were determined using cone-beam computed tomography in 120 Angle Class I subjects. Subjects were categorized as short, normal, and long face types according to the Frankfort mandibular angle. Parameters indicating the position of the mandibular right premolars and the mandible were also measured. Results: The angle between the mandibular first premolar axis and buccal cortex, the distance between the root apex and buccal cortex, angle of vestibularization, arc of vestibularization, and root apex maximum movable distance were significantly greater in the short face type than in the long and norm face types. The angle between the mandibular second premolar axis and buccal cortex, the distance from root apex to buccal cortex, and the arc of vestibularization were significantly greater in the short face type than in the normal face type. Conclusions: There are significant differences in the mandibular premolar positions in Class I subjects according to vertical facial type.

Keywords

References

  1. Ingervall B, Thilander B. Relation between facial morphology and activity of the masticatory muscles. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:131-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1974.tb00771.x
  2. Bassil-Nassif N, Bouserhal J, Garcia R. Facial volumes and vertical facial type: a three dimensional comparative study. Orthod Fr 2010;81:127-37. https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2010011
  3. Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998;68:557-62.
  4. Gracco A, Lombardo L, Mancuso G, Gravina V, Siciliani G. Upper incisor position and bony support in untreated patients as seen on CBCT. Angle Orthod 2009;79:692-702. https://doi.org/10.2319/081908-437.1
  5. Yamada C, Kitai N, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Takada K. Spatial relationships between the mandibular central incisor and associated alveolar bone in adults with mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2007;77:766-72. https://doi.org/10.2319/072906-309
  6. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996;66:95-109; discussion 109-10.
  7. Masumoto T, Hayashi I, Kawamura A, Tanaka K, Kasai K. Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:15-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.1.15
  8. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931;1: 45-66.
  9. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75-80.
  10. NA B, XU T, Lin J. Vertical changes during orthodontic treatment for class II division 1 female. Chinese J Orthod 2006;13:23-6.
  11. Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:734-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021
  12. Sherrard JF, Rossouw PE, Benson BW, Carrillo R, Buschang PH. Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137(4 Suppl):S100-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.040
  13. Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr005
  14. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: conebeam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:312.e1-10; discussion 312-3.
  15. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009;31: 129-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn088
  16. Thilander B, Nyman S, Karring T, Magnusson I. Bone regeneration in alveolar bone dehiscences related to orthodontic tooth movements. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:105-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/5.2.105
  17. Steiner GG, Pearson JK, Ainamo J. Changes of the marginal periodontium as a result of labial tooth movement in monkeys. J Periodontol 1981;52:314-20. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1981.52.6.314
  18. Kaley J, Phillips C. Factors related to root resorption in edgewise practice. Angle Orthod 1991;61:125-32.
  19. Edwards JG. A study of the anterior portion of the palate as it relates to orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod 1976;69:249-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90075-0
  20. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciger S, Ariyurek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122:15-26. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119804
  21. Ten Hoeve A, Mulie RM. The effect of anteropostero incisor repositioning on the palatal cortex as studied with laminagraphy. J Clin Orthod 1976; 10:804-22.
  22. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
  23. Linge BO, Linge L. Apical root resorption in upper anterior teeth. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:173-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/5.3.173
  24. Darendeliler MA, Kharbanda OP, Chan EK, Srivicharnkul P, Rex T, Swain MV, et al. Root resorption and its association with alterations in physical properties, mineral contents and resorption craters in human premolars following application of light and heavy controlled orthodontic forces. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004;7:79-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00281.x
  25. Yoshida N, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Koga Y, Mimaki N, Kobayashi K. Experimental evaluation of initial tooth displacement, center of resistance, and center of rotation under the influence of an orthodontic force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120:190-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.115036
  26. Tanne K, Nagataki T, Inoue Y, Sakuda M, Burstone CJ. Patterns of initial tooth displacements associated with various root lengths and alveolar bone heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70051-W
  27. Choy K, Pae EK, Park Y, Kim KH, Burstone CJ. Effect of root and bone morphology on the stress distribution in the periodontal ligament. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70254-X
  28. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Nixon WL. Occlusal forces in normal-and long-face adults. J Dent Res 1983; 62:566-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620051201
  29. Bakke M, Tuxen A, Vilmann P, Jensen BR, Vilmann A, Toft M. Ultrasound image of human masseter muscle related to bite force, electromyography, facial morphology, and occlusal factors. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:164-71.
  30. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec Cakan D. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using conebeam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:36-43. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36