Comparative Evaluation of Cranial Base Length and Flexure on Facial Parameters in Hypodivergent, Normodivergent and Hyperdivergent Patients: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study
Citation Information :
Comparative Evaluation of Cranial Base Length and Flexure on Facial Parameters in Hypodivergent, Normodivergent and Hyperdivergent Patients: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (4):244-249.
Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the influence of cranial base length (CBL) and Flexure on facial parameters in Hypodivergent, Normodivergent, and Hyperdivergent patients.
Materials and methods: Around 60 standardized cephalograms were divided into Hypodivergent, Normodivergent, and Hyperdivergent groups (20 each) based on the FMA angle. The CBL, cranial flexure (CF), and various facial parameters were measured for each case. The results were analyzed for the correlation between Cranial and facial parameters in each of the three study groups.
Results: Comparison and Pairwise Comparison of variables between study groups were done using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc Test. Cranial base length, mandibular body length, LAFH, N-Me-Go angle (p-value <0.001), and Jarabak's ratio were found to be significantly different between the groups. Pearson's Correlation showed that most of the facial parameters had a significant correlation with CBL in Hypodivergent groups.
Conclusion: The CBL is more closely related to facial parameters in vertical dysplasia individuals than CF. The CBL is positively correlated to facial variables, especially in Hypodivergent individuals. The N-Me-Go Angle introduced in the study was significantly different in all three vertical facial types studied; hence, it cannot be used as a valuable diagnostic tool.
Clinical significance: Changes in the length and flexure of the cranial base influence the anteroposterior position of jaw bases. The influence of the cranial base on the development of vertical dysplasias is not studied much, hence the present study aims at resolving this lacuna in literature.
Kuroe K, Rosas A, Molleson T. Variation in the cranial base orientation and facial skeleton in dry skulls sampled from three major populations. Eur J Orthod 2004;26(2):201–207. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.2.201.
Thiesen G, Pletsch G, Zastrow MD, et al. Comparative analysis of the anterior and posterior length and deflection angle of the cranial base, in individuals with facial pattern I, II and III. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18(1):69–75. DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000100016.
Chin A, Perry S, Liao C, et al. The relationship between the cranial base and jaw base in a Chinese population. Head Face Med 2014;10(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-31.
Awad AM, Gaballah SM, Gomaa NE. Relationship between cranial base and jaw base in different skeletal patterns. Orthod Waves 2018;77(2):125–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2018.03.002.
Soni S, Vyas MB, Jasoria G, et al. Comparison between cranial base angle and skeletal “a retrospective cephalometric study.” TMU J Dent. 5(4):5–10. Available from: http://www.tmujdent.co.in/pdf/vol5issue4/vol%205%20issue%204_02.pdf.
Nyakale M, Khan M, Sethusa M, et al. Relationship between cranial base flexure and sagittal jaw relationships. S Afr dent j 2019;74(9):479–484. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2019/v74no9a1.
Bhattacharya A, Bhatia A, Patel D, et al. Evaluation of relationship between cranial base angle and maxillofacial morphology in indian population: A cephalometric study. J Orthodont Sci 2014;3(3):74–80. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.137691.
Guyer EC, Ellis EE, McNamara JA, et al. Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod 1986;56(1):7–30. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1986)056<0007:COCIMI>2.0.CO;2.
Marquez IM, Mazzottini R. Evaluation of facial pattern, orthodontic preparation and capacity for surgical treatment in class III patients with mandibular prognathism (Thesis). Bauru (SP): Faculty of dentistry of Bauru: 1994.
Richard Sanborn. Difference between the facial skeletal patterns of class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1955;25(4):208–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1955)025<0208:DBTFSP>2.0.CO;2.
Hopkin GB, Houston WJB, James GA. The cranial base as an aetiological factor in malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1968;38(3):250–255. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1968)038<0250:TCBAAA>2.0.CO;2.
Kerr WJS, Hirst D. Craniofacial characteristics of subjects with normal and post normal occlusions-a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;92(3):207–212. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90413-6.
Kasai K, Moro T, Kanazawa E, et al. Relationship between cranial base and maxillofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1995;17(5):403–410. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/17.5.403.
Xiao D, Gao H, Ren Y. Craniofacial morphological characteristics of Chinese adults with normal occlusion and different skeletal divergence. Eur J Orthod 2011;33(2):198–204. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq064.
Subtelny D, Sakuda. Open-Bite: Diagnosis and treatment. Am J Orthod 1964;50(5):337–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(64)90175-7.
Dhopatkar A, Bhatia S, Rock P. An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002;72(5):456–463. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0456:AIITRB>2.0.CO;2.
