Cephalometric Assessment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion in a Sample of Kurdish Population in Sulaimani City (Retrospective Study)

Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 2024 , Pages 18-26

Authors

Havana H. Nadir 1 ; Anwar A. Amin 1

1 Orthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.

DOI logo 10.17656/sdj.10183

Keywords

Abstract

Objective:
This retrospective comparative cephalometric study aims to identify the cephalometric features of skeletal class II malocclusion in a sample of the Kurdish population, the result of this study willl be useful in diagnosing and treating orthodontic and jaw surgery.

Methods:
A total of 85 pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs with skeletal class II malocclusion (ANB>=4) and 81 with skeletal class I malocclusion (1=<ANB<4) were obtained from the pre-orthodontic patient records in a private orthodontic clinic in Sulaimani city. The patients were between 18 and 35 years old. The lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed digitally using FACAD cephalometric software. Twenty-two variables were measured from each cephalometric radiograph. The correlation between Class I and II was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney Test.

Results:
The result showed that the values of SNA, ANB, Y-axis, Convexity angle, Gonial angle, Intermaxillary angle, facial angle and FMA, posterior cranial base, effective maxillary length, LAFH were higher in skeletal Class II than in Class I cases, which indicates that skeletal class II Kurdish population have more vertical mandibular growth and prognathic maxilla, retrognathic mandible, and longer face than class I. Meanwhile, SNB, Mandibular length, TFH, UAFH, Maxillary length, UI-Palatal plane angle, IMPA, and effective mandibular length values were lower and the difference was statistically significant in the majority of cases.This illustrates that the incisors are more proclined in class I than skeletal class II, whereas the mandible is shorter in skeletal class II patients. These results summarize the characteristic features of skeletal class II patients in a sample of the Kurdish population in Sulaimani City, which are caused by etiological factors (genetic, congenital). This information is useful for enabling orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons to attain a diagnosis and treatment plan for skeletal class II patients in a shorter period.

Conclusions:
Skeletal class II malocclusion in the Kurdish population is characterized by a prognathic but short maxilla, retrognathic, short, backward, and downward rotated mandible, and a prominent chin.

References

  1. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Comparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian adults in the anteroposterior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):493-9.
  2. Helal NM, Basri OA. Significance of cephalometric radiograph in orthodontic treatment plan decision. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2019;20(7):789-93.
  3. Littlewood, Simon J., and Laura Mitchell. An introduction to orthodontics. Oxford University Press, 2019;5th ed.;73-85.
  4. Dinçer, B., Yetkiner, E., Aras, I., Attin, T. and Attin, R. Influence of lateral cephalometric radiographs on extraction decision in skeletal class I patients. Head Face Med. 2013:9(1);1-7.
  5. Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN. Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(5):859-66.
  6. Freitas MR, Santos MA, Freitas KM, Janson G, Freitas DS, Henriques JF. Cephalometric characterization of skeletal Class II, division 1 malocclusion in white Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13(2):198-203.
  7. Hamdan AM, Rock WP. Cephalometric norms in an Arabic population. J Orthod. 2001;28(4):297-300.
  8. Gonzalez M, Schlenker W, Sugiyama R, Caruso J. Establishing cephalometric norms for a Mexican population using Ricketts, Steiner, Tweed and Arnett analyses. APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2013;3(6):171-7.
  9. Gu Y, McNamara JA, Jr., Sigler LM, Baccetti T. Comparison of craniofacial characteristics of typical Chinese and Caucasian young adults. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(2):205-11.
  10. Moyers RE, Riolo ML, Guire KE, Wainright RL, Bookstein FL. Differential diagnosis of class II malocclusions. Part 1. Facial types associated with class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod. 1980;78(5):477-94.
  11. McNamara JA, Jr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(3):177-202.
  12. Rothstein TL. Facial morphology and growth from 10 to 14 years of age in children presenting Class II, Division 1 Malocclusion: a comparative roentgenographic cephalometric study. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(6):619-20.
  13. Ardani I, Sanjaya ML, Sjamsudin J. Cephalometric characteristic of skeletal class II malocclusion in Javanese population at Universitas Airlangga Dental Hospital. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S342-S6.
  14. Gasgoos S, Al-Saleem Na, Awni K. Cephalometric features of skeletal Class I, II and III (A comparative study). Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2007;7(2):122-30.
  15. Yassir YA. Saddle angle and its relationship with maxillary and mandibular lengths. Iraqi Orthod J. 2009;5(1):14-6.
  16. Monirifard M, Sadeghian S, Afshari Z, Rafiei E, Sichani AV. Relationship between cephalometric cranial base and anterior-posterior features in an Iranian population. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020;17(1):60-5.
  17. Chin A, Perry S, Liao C, Yang Y. The relationship between the cranial base and jaw base in a Chinese population. Head Face Med. 2014;10:31.
  18. Abdulla, Chia Abdul, and Trefa Mohammed Ali Mahmood. A new template for the evaluation of soft tissue cephalometric finding for a sample of young adults. Azerbaijan Med J. 2023;63(5):9369-82.
  19. Björk A. Cranial base development. Am J Orthod. 1955;41(3):198-225.
  20. Kerr WJ, Adams CP. Cranial base and jaw relationship. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1988;77(2):213-20.
  21. Kamak H, Senel B, Çatalbas B. Cranial base features between sagittal skeletal malocclusions in Anatolian Turkish adults: Is there a difference? J Orthod Res. 2013;1(2).
  22. Dibbets JM. Morphological associations between the Angle classes. Eur J Orthod. 1996;18(2):111-8.
  23. Shaji T Varghese, Dr. Jayaraj A A, Dr. Lijo K Jose, Dr. Hrudya Balachandran, Dr. Pramada Kishore, Dr. Arun P B, et al. The average anterior cranial base length, maxillary length and mandibular length among male and female adults in Kerala population. IOSR-JDMS. 2022;21(4).
  24. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Vorhies B, Bayati P. Changes in dentofacial structures in untreated Class II division 1 and normal subjects: a longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 1997;67(1):55-66.
Statistics
  • Article view640
  • Downloads7
  • Published at1 April 2024

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver