Morphological measurement and analysis of the mandible in adult females with different vertical skeletal types

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.3059

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: A review of previous epidemiological investigations shows that the detection rate of malocclusion is the highest in Angle I, but the classification is limited by the failure to consider the comprehensive mechanism of the formation of malocclusion in the three-dimensional direction of the length, width and height of teeth, jaws and facial structures, and the profound impact of the position of the mandible and facial bones on a person’s appearance. Therefore, the morphological characteristics of the mandible and chin should be fully considered before orthodontic treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the similarities and differences of the three-dimensional facial morphology in adult females with different vertical skeletal types of skeletal Class I by measuring the three-dimensional morphology of the chins and mandibles through cone-beam CT multi-planar reconstruction.
METHODS: According to SN-MP angle, the cone-beam CT images of 86 females with skeletal Class I aged from 18 to 35 years were imported into MIMCS19.0 to make multi-planar reconstruction, and then the data was divided into three groups: < 29° (low angle group, 30 cases), 29°-39° (average angle group, 30 cases), and > 39° (high angle group, 26 cases). Then, the mandibular linear distance and angle were measured, and the mandibular outline was measured through the three-dimensional reconstruction.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: With the increase of mandibular plane angle, the morphology of mandible tended to be: (1) the mandible ascending ramus became shorter, and the mandible body grew; (2) the notch of mandibular angle deepened gradually, and the opening of the mandibular angle increased gradually relative to the cranial-jaw; (3) the alveolar process of the chin became longer and the shape of chin became gentle; (4) counterclockwise rotation of the chin and compensatory inclination of lower anterior teeth towards tongue occurred. Comparing different vertical skeletal types of skeletal Class I in adult females, both the morphologies of the mandible and chin are different, and the mandibular plane angle is related to the morphology of the mandible and chin.

Key words: adult female, vertical skeletal type, cone-beam CT, mandible, Class I malocclusion

CLC Number:

Fan Jiabing, Zhang Junmei. Morphological measurement and analysis of the mandible in adult females with different vertical skeletal types[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2021, 25(8): 1177-1183.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] PERILLO L, ESPOSITO M, CAPRIOGLIO A, et al. Orthodontic treatment need for adolescents in the Campania region: the malocclusion impact on self-concept. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:353-359.
[2] ORSINI MG, HUANG GJ, KIYAK HA, et al. Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the anteroposterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(3):283-291.
[3] ANDREWS LF. The 6-elements orthodontic philosophy: Treatment goals, classification, and rules for treating. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(6):883-887.
[4] MENDELSON B, WONG CH. Changes in the facial skeleton with aging: implications and clinical applications in facial rejuvenation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36(4):753-760.
[5] 颜彦. 美貌女性唇、鼻及颏部软组织侧貌美观评价[D].天津:天津医科大学,2016.
[6] HOENIG JF. Sliding osteotomy genioplasty for facial aesthetic balance: 10 years of experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(4):384-391.
[7] LAHAYE MB, BUSCHANG PH, ALEXANDER RG, et al. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6):732-741.
[8] LUDLOW JB, GUBLER M, CEVIDANES L, et al. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(3):312.e1-313.
[9] LAGRAVÈRE MO, CAREY J, TOOGOOD RW, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):112-116.
[10] CHEN D, CHEN CH, TANG L, et al. Three-dimensional reconstructions in spine and screw trajectory simulation on 3D digital images: a step by step approach by using Mimics software. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(4): 650-656.
[11] MIHALIK CA, PROFFIT WR, PHILLIPS C. Long-term follow-up of Class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: a comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(3):266-278.
[12] SINGH AK, GANESHKAR SV, MEHROTRA P, et al. Comparison of different parameters for recording sagittal maxillo mandibular relation using natural head posture: A cephalometric study. J Orthod Sci. 2013; 2(1):16-22.
[13] 邹冰爽,曾祥龙,傅民魁. 高角和低角病例的诊断、临床特征及正畸治疗特点[J].口腔正畸学,1999,6(1):39-42.
[14] BURSTONE CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967;53(4):262-284.
[15] RICKETTS RM. Cephalometric Analysis And Synthesis. Angle Orthod. 1961;31(3):141-156.
[16] STEINER CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953; 39(10):729-755.
[17] MERRIFIELD LL, KLONTZ HA, VADEN JL. Differential diagnostic analysis system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106(6):641-648.
[18] HOLDAWAY RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983;84(1):1-28.
[19] 周晗.成人骨性Ⅱ类不同垂直骨面型下颌骨及颏部形态三维研究[D].大连:大连医科大学,2016.
[20] 管默.成年男性骨性Ⅲ类不同垂直骨面型软组织侧貌及颏部形态的研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2019.
[21] 韩保迪.安氏Ⅰ类错(牙合)不同垂直骨面型下颌骨和颅底形态的比较研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2008.
[22] 贾培增,吴威.不同垂直骨面型者的颏部形态[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2007,25(2):142-145.
[23] 舒艳,刘珺,陈杰,等.成人骨性Ⅲ类错不同垂直骨面型下颌骨及颏部的比较[J].上海口腔医学,2011,20(2):191-195.
[24] 李婧,樊永杰.女性青少年不同垂直骨面型颏部形态的研究[J].国际口腔医学杂志,2016,43(4):387-390.
[25] 孙毅.成人骨性Ⅱ类不同垂直骨面型患者切牙区和颏部形态的三维研究[D].福州:福建医科大学,2015.
[26] SIRIWAT PP, JARABAK JR. Malocclusion and facial morphology is there a relationship? An epidemiologic study. Angle Orthod. 1985;55(2): 127-138.
[27] KARLSEN AT. Craniofacial growth differences between low and high MP-SN angle males: a longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(5): 341-350.
[28] BJORK A.Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963;42(1)Pt 2:400-411.
[29] ENLOW DH. The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal Growth and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Hoeber Medical Division, Harper and Row Publishers, 1968.
[30] FERRARIO VF, SFORZA C, DE FRANCO DJ. Mandibular shape and skeletal divergency. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(2):145-153.
[31] NAKAWAKI T, YAMAGUCHI T, TOMITA D, et al. Evaluation of mandibular volume classified by vertical skeletal dimensions with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(6):949-954.