Comparison between antegonial notch depth, symphysis morphology and ramus morphology among different growth patterns in skeletal class I and class II subjects

Abstract

In orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, a thorough knowledge of growth and development is essential in order to understand various factors that contribute as to how a particular type of growth takes place. When planning of orthodontic treatment for a malocclusion, one has to take into account the growth pattern, because it would considerably affect the success of the treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare antegonial notch depth, symphysis morphology, and ramus morphology in different growth patterns in skeletal class I and class II subjects. In this study, a total of 60 cephalograms were taken which comprised 30 cephalograms in skeletal class I and 30 cephalograms of skeletal class II patients. The groups were further divided into three groups, namely average, horizontal, and vertical growth patterns based on Jarabak’s ratio. Antegonial notch depth, symphysis width and symphysis angle, and ramus height were measured and compared between the growth patterns and between class I and class II skeletal patterns. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to determine the comparison between groups for all these variables in both skeletal class I and class II. Independent 't' test was done to determine the comparison between skeletal class I and class II subjects for all variables. Mean and SD values for all variables were determined for all the groups. Depth of antegonial notch was found to be greater in vertical growth patterns compared to horizontal and average growth patterns. Large symphysis angle and symphysis width were noted in a horizontal growth pattern. Increased ramus height was noted in horizontal and average growth patterns. There was no significant difference between skeletal class I and class II malocclusion for all parameters.

Quantitative assessment of ramal bone width and the proximity of the inferior canal for the predictable insertion of ramal implants: Cone-beam computed tomography study

“…One limitation of this study is that it does not account for the anatomical and morphological differences of the ramus in different skeletal and vertical facial patterns, and the sample size is insufficient to ideally ascertain any gender-based differences in ramus morphology. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42] us, the impact of these additional factors must be evaluated in future studies.…”

“…Improper placement complications may cause unnecessary iatrogenic damage and may result in medico-legal consequences. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Although ramal implants have been successfully inserted in a variety of clinical situations, there has always been concern about their safety due to variations concerning the position of the neurovascular structures, the anatomy of the ramus of the mandible and the optimum height from the occlusal plane from which the implant is inserted. [5,[43][44][45][46][47] erefore, this study was conducted to identify the optimum level for the placement of ramal extra-alveolar implants by considering the transverse bone width of the Ramus and the proximity of the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) to the site of insertion using 3-dimensional (3D) perspective.…”

Prevalence of Oral Screen Appliance Therapy in 6-12 Year Old Children Visiting a University Dental Hospital: A Retrospective Study

“…It is believed to strengthen the lips in the regular application of external force with accompanying lip contraction; that is to say, the lips will be able to exercise more force as a result of their training [14]. Our team has extensive knowledge and research experience that has translate into high quality publications [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”