The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Maxillomandibular arch width differences at estimated centers of resistance: Comparison between normal occlusion and skeletal Class III malocclusion

  • Koo, Yun-Jin (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Hwan (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Keum, Byeong-Tak (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yu, Hyung-Seog (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Hwang, Chung-Ju (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Melsen, Birte (Department of Orthodontics, University of Aarhus) ;
  • Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2015.05.06
  • Accepted : 2016.10.26
  • Published : 2017.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the differences in maxillomandibular transverse measurements at either the crown or the estimated center of resistance (CR), and to compare values between normal occlusion and Class III malocclusion groups. Methods: Dental casts and computed tomography (CT) data from 30 individuals with normal occlusion and 30 with skeletal Class III malocclusions were evaluated. Using the casts, dental arch widths (DAWs) were measured from the cusp tips, and basal arch widths (BAWs-cast) were measured as the distance between the points at the mucogingival junction adjacent to the respective cusp tips. The BAWs determined from CT (BAWs-CT) images were measured from the estimated CRs of the teeth. Results: None of the DAW measurements or maxillomandibular DAW differences showed statistically significant intergroup differences. In contrast, the maxillary BAWs-CT and BAWs-cast were lesser in the Class III malocclusion group than in the normal occlusion group. The mandibular BAWs-CT were significantly greater in the Class III malocclusion group than in the normal occlusion group. Moreover, the maxillomandibular BAW differences on both CT and cast showed significant intergroup differences in all transverse measurements. Conclusions: The maxillomandibular DAW differences showed no significant intergroup differences. In contrast, the maxillomandibular BAW differences on both CT and cast showed significant intergroup differences in all transverse measurements. The maxillomandibular BAW differences at the estimated CRs, measured using CT or casts, can reveal underlying transverse maxillary basal arch deficiencies in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusions.

Keywords

References

  1. Franchi L, Baccetti T. Transverse maxillary deficiency in Class II and Class III malocclusions: a cephalometric and morphometric study on posteroanterior films. Orthod Craniofac Res 2005;8:21-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00312.x
  2. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Prewitt JW, Turvey TA. Stability after surgical-orthodontic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. 2. Maxillary advancement. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1991;6:71-80.
  3. McNamara JA. Maxillary transverse deficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:567-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70202-2
  4. Uysal T, Usumez S, Memili B, Sari Z. Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2005;75:809-13.
  5. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51:115-50.
  6. Hesby RM, Marshall SD, Dawson DV, Southard KA, Casko JS, Franciscus RG, et al. Transverse skeletal and dentoalveolar changes during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:721-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.03.026
  7. Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Caltabiano M. Landmark identification error in posteroanterior cephalometric radiography. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008;78:761-5. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0761:LIEIPC]2.0.CO;2
  8. Jung PK, Lee GC, Moon CH. Comparison of conebeam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:282-8. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.282
  9. Kusayama M, Motohashi N, Kuroda T. Relationship between transverse dental anomalies and skeletal asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:329-37. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.41
  10. Tyan S, Park HS, Janchivdorj M, Han SH, Kim SJ, Ahn HW. Three-dimensional analysis of molar compensation in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2016;86: 421-30. https://doi.org/10.2319/030915-142.1
  11. Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod 1977;72:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(77)90121-X
  12. Melsen B, Agerbaek N, Markenstam G. Intrusion of incisors in adult patients with marginal bone loss. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:232-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90460-5
  13. Smith RJ, Burstone CJ. Mechanics of tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1984;85:294-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90187-8
  14. Jo AR, Mo SS, Lee KJ, Sung SJ, Chun YS. Finiteelement analysis of the center of resistance of the mandibular dentition. Korean J Orthod 2017;47:21-30. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.1.21
  15. van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IH. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:658-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.039
  16. Lee KJ, Joo E, Kim KD, Lee JS, Park YC, Yu HS. Computed tomographic analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone for orthodontic miniscrew placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:486-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.019
  17. Vanarsdall RL Jr. Transverse dimension and longterm stability. Semin Orthod 1999;5:171-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(99)80008-5
  18. Burstone CJ, Choy K. The biomechanical foundation of clinical orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 2015.
  19. Lim MY, Lim SH. Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod 2009;39:6-17. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2009.39.1.6
  20. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004;24:1679-91. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.246045065
  21. Kuntz TR, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Kremenak CR, Kohout FJ, Jakobsen JR. Arch widths in adults with Class I crowded and Class III malocclusions compared with normal occlusions. Angle Orthod 2008;78:597-603. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0597:AWIAWC]2.0.CO;2
  22. Lee HK, Son WS. A study on basal and dental arch width in skeletal class III malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2002;32:117-27.
  23. 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
  24. Suk KE, Park JH, Bayome M, Nam YO, Sameshima GT, Kook YA. Comparison between dental and basal arch forms in normal occlusion and Class III malocclusions utilizing cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:15-22. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.1.15
  25. Robert WE. Bone physiology, metabolism, biomechanics in orthodontic practice. In: Graber LE, Vanarsdall Jr RL, Vig KW, eds. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Mosby; 2012.
  26. Proffit WR. Equilibrium theory revisited: factors influencing position of the teeth. Angle Orthod 1978;48:175-86.
  27. Ovsenik M, Primozic J. How to push the limits in the transverse dimension? Facial asymmetry, palatal volume and tongue posture in children with unilateral posterior cross bite: a threedimensional evaluation of early treatment. Orthod Fr 2014;85:139-49. https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2014008
  28. Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, Legan HL. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68: 29-36.
  29. Choi SH, Shi KK, Cha JY, Park YC, Lee KJ. Nonsurgical miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion results in acceptable stability in young adults. Angle Orthod 2016;86:713-20. https://doi.org/10.2319/101415-689.1
  30. Lee KJ, Park YC, Park JY, Hwang WS. Miniscrewassisted nonsurgical palatal expansion before orthognathic surgery for a patient with severe mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:830-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.065

Cited by

  1. Maxillary transverse expansion in adults: Rationale, appliance design, and treatment outcomes vol.24, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.01.006
  2. Asymmetric nasomaxillary expansion induced by tooth‐bone‐borne expander producing differential craniofacial changes vol.22, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12320
  3. Stability of bimaxillary surgery involving intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy with or without presurgical miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclus vol.50, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.5.304
  4. Impact of Osteotomy in Surgically Assisted Rapid Maxillary Expansion Using Tooth-Borne Appliance on the Formation of Stresses and Displacement Patterns in the Facial Skeleton-A Study Using Finite Elem vol.10, pp.22, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228261
  5. Clinical applications of miniscrews that broaden the scope of non‐surgical orthodontic treatment vol.24, pp.suppl, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12452
  6. Dental and skeletal changes on cone-beam computed tomography after rapid maxillary expansion using rapid palatal expander for the growing children vol.7, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omsc.2021.100237