The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Correlation of Dental and Skeletal Malocclusions in Sagittal Plane among Saudi Orthodontic Patients

Nasir Al-Hamlan, Balsam Al-Eissa, Ahmad S Al-Hiyasat, Farraj S Albalawi, Anwar E Ahmed

Citation Information : Al-Hamlan N, Al-Eissa B, Al-Hiyasat AS, Albalawi FS, Ahmed AE. Correlation of Dental and Skeletal Malocclusions in Sagittal Plane among Saudi Orthodontic Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (5):353-359.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1689

Published Online: 00-05-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Whether or not the dental relationship correlates with skeletal relationship in the sagittal plane is an area of interest for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the correlation of the dental malocclusion and the skeletal malocclusion in the sagittal plane among Saudi orthodontic patients.

Materials and methods

Orthodontic dental casts and cephalometric radiographs of 124 patients were investigated and analyzed. The dental casts were classified in relation to the molar relationship according to Angle's classification and to the incisal relationship according to the British Standards Institution (BSI) classification. The sagittal relation in the cephalometric radiographs was analyzed according to ANB angle and WITS appraisal.

Results

The results show that the incisal relation had a very high significant association with WITS appraisal (p = 0.0045), whereas with ANB, the association was marginally significant (p =0.0528). No significant associations were found with molar relation neither at ANB (p = 0.2075) nor at the WITS (p = 0.4794) appraisal. Significant positive correlations between ANB and WITS appraisal were found at the three incisal classification classes (class I, r = 0.73; class II, r = 0.64; class III, r = 0.75) and no significant correlation was observed in all classes with the Angle's (molar) classification.

Conclusions

The incisal classification had a significant association with WITS appraisal, whereas with ANB the association was marginally significant. No correlation was found between Angle's (molar) classification and ANB or WITS appraisal.

Clinical significance

The incisal relation could be considered as a good indicator of the skeletal malocclusion in the sagittal plane in the orthodontic practice.

How to cite this article

Al-Hamlan N, Al-Eissa B, Al-Hiyasat AS, Albalawi FS, Ahmed AE. Correlation of Dental and Skeletal Malocclusions in Sagittal Plane among Saudi Orthodontic Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):353-359.


PDF Share
  1. Occlusion, malocclusion and method of measurements—an overview. Arch Orofac Sci 2007;2:3-9.
  2. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899;4:248-264.
  3. Correlation of the anteroposterior relationships of the dental arch and jaw-base in subjects with class I, class II and class III malocclusions. Int J Contemp Dent 2011;2:68-73.
  4. The nature of facial prognathism and its relation to normal occlusion of the teeth. Am J Orthod 1951;137:106-124.
  5. The morphological and morphogenetic basis for craniofacial form and pattern. Angle Orthod 1971;41:161-188.
  6. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1978;73:619-633.
  7. A comparative occlusal and cephalometric study of dental and skeletal anteroposterior relationship. Br J Orthod 1983;10:53-54.
  8. Changes in the relationship of nasion, point A, and point B and the effect upon ANB. Am J Orthod 1969;56:143-163.
  9. Variations in facial relationship: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-840.
  10. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-755
  11. The ‘WITS’ appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67:125-138.
  12. A comparison of five different methods for describing sagittal jaw relationship. Br J Orthod 1993;20:13-17.
  13. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year Book 2007. p. 194.
  14. Anteroposterior dental arch and jaw-base relationships in a population sample. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1023-1029.
  15. Overjet as a predictor of sagittal skeletal relationships. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:269-273.
  16. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth. 7th ed. Philadelphia (PA): SS White Manufacturing Company; 1907.
  17. British standard glossary of dental terms, BS, 4492. London: HMSO; 1983.
  18. The relationship between static and dynamic occlusion in 14-17-year-old school children. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:628-633.
  19. Influence of occlusal plane inclination on ANB and WITS assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationships. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:641-648.
  20. Longitudinal changes in the ANB angle and WITS appraisal: clinical implications. Am J Orthod 1983;84:133-139.
  21. A new index for evaluating horizontal skeletal discrepancies and predicting treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:663-669.
  22. Comparison between cephalometric classification methods for sagittal jaw relationships. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:221-227.
  23. Cephalometric characteristics of class II division 1 and class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 1997;67:111-120.
  24. The WITS appraisal among a Nigerian sub-population: an assessment of dental base geometric factors. Braz J Oral Sci 2013;12:275-279.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.