Craniofacial features affecting mandibular asymmetries in skeletal Class II patients

Thiesen, Guilherme; Gribel, Bruno Frazāo; Freitas, Maria Perpétua Mota; Oliver, Dana; Kim, K. B.

doi:10.1007/s00056-017-0100-6

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, subjects with non-CFM class II asymmetry had relatively symmetric body height, which is accordant with the study of Kim et al [19]. The reduced ramal height on the chin deviation side is a consistent finding in the literature regardless of the presence of CFM, age, the type of sagittal skeletal discrepancy (class II or III) [8,[20][21][22][23][24], and unsurprisingly, the hypoplastic nature in CFM exaggerated the height discrepancy. The gonial width ratio, on the other hand, was not different between the two groups, indicating similar inward bending of the mandibular angle on the affected side.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Is the pattern of mandibular asymmetry in mild craniofacial microsomia comparable to non-syndromic class II asymmetry?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the characteristics of mandibular asymmetry in patients with unilateral craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and class II asymmetry. Materials and methods Pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography of consecutive adults with Pruzansky-Kaban type I and IIA CFM (CFM group) was analyzed by 3D cephalometry. Fourteen mandibular landmarks and two dental landmarks were identified. The mandibular size and positional asymmetry were calculated by using landmark-based linear and volumetric measurements, in terms of asymmetry ratios (affected/non-affected side) and absolute differences (affected − non-affected side). Results were compared with non-syndromic class II with matched severity of chin deviation (Class II group). Statistical analyses included independent t test, paired t test, chi-square test, and ANOVA. Results CFM group (n, 21; mean age, 20.4 ± 2.5 years) showed significantly larger size asymmetry in regions of mandibular body, ramus, and condyle compared to Class II group (n, 21; mean age, 27.8 ± 5.9 years) (p < 0.05). The curvature of mandibular body was asymmetric in CFM. Regarding the positional asymmetry of mandibular body, while a comparable transverse shift and a negligible yaw rotation were found among the two groups, the roll rotation in CFM was significantly greater as well as the occlusal (6.06° vs. 4.17°) and mandibular (7.84° vs. 2.80°) plane cants (p < 0.05). Conclusions Mild CFM showed significantly more severe size asymmetry and roll rotation in mandible than non-CFM class II asymmetry. Clinical relevance To improve the mandibular size and positional asymmetry in CFM, adjunct hard tissue augmentation or reduction in addition to OGS orthodontics with a meticulous roll and yaw planning is compulsory, which is expected to be distinct from treating non-CFM class II asymmetry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Is the pattern of mandibular asymmetry in mild craniofacial microsomia comparable to non-syndromic class II asymmetry?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30 Previous studies using the asymmetry index found a difference in ramus height between sides in asymmetric Class III 31 and Class II patients. 32 Mendoza et al 27 also found considerable rates of condylar height asymmetry in all sagittal malocclusions. In this systematic review, chin deviation was the parameter mainly used to consider mandibular asymmetry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Prevalence of mandibular asymmetry in different skeletal sagittal patterns:

Evangelista¹,

Teodoro²,

Bianchi³

et al. 2021

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To analyze the prevalence of mandibular asymmetry in skeletal sagittal malocclusions. Materials and Methods PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO and gray literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) were electronically searched. Two independent investigators selected the eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). One reviewer independently extracted the data and the second reviewer checked this information. Any disagreement between the reviewers in each phase was resolved by discussion between them and/or involved a third reviewer for final decision. Results Electronic search identified 5,132 studies, and 5 observational studies were included. Risk of bias was low in two studies, moderate in one, and high in two. The studies showed high heterogeneity. Mandibular asymmetry ranged from 17.43% to 72.95% in overall samples. Horizontal chin deviation showed a prevalence of 17.66% to 55.6% asymmetry in Class I malocclusions, and 68.98% in vertical asymmetry index. In Class II patients, prevalence of mandibular asymmetry varied from 10% to 25.5% in horizontal chin deviation, and 71.7% in vertical asymmetry index. The Class III sample showed a prevalence of mandibular asymmetry ranging from 22.93% to 78% in horizontal chin deviation and 80.4% in vertical asymmetry index. Patients seeking orthodontic or orthognathic surgery treatment showed greater prevalence of mandibular asymmetry. Conclusions Skeletal Class III malocclusion showed the greatest prevalence of mandibular asymmetry. Mandibular vertical asymmetry showed a marked prevalence in all malocclusions. However, conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to use of convenience samples and low-quality study outcomes.

show abstract

“…Allareddy et al (2016) mencionaron que pueden existir múltiples variaciones en las manifestaciones maxilo mandibulares pero que el plano oclusal y ángulo mandibular son factores importantes ya que pueden relacionarse con mordidas abiertas o invertida, y que estos factores pueden aumentar en el tiempo. Nuestro estudio no se encontró correlación entre la clase esqueletal facial y el plano vertical oclusal debido a que nuestra investigación realiza un análisis en puntos maxilares laterales únicos y no verdaderamente en un plano oclusal sagital como Allareddy et al Por otra parte, la asimetría facial clase III es evidenciada debido a la proyección del mentón y el ángulo mandibular prominente, lo que da una apreciación más ancha de la cara, pero en el caso de los pacientes clase II, puede existir un encubrimiento de sus características esqueletal debido a la compensación de los tejidos blandos y variaciones étnicas (Thiesen et al, 2017b;Rana et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Relación Transversal, Vertical y Sagital en Sujetos con Deformidad Facial Candidatos a Cirugía Ortognática

Ravelo

de-Moraes

Olate

2020

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la relación entre la clase esqueletal sagital y las condiciones transversales o verticales en sujetos con deformidad facial sin presencia de asimetría facial; Se realizó un análisis cefalométrico de la clase esqueletal sagital, transversal y vertical en 115 sujetos con indicaciones de cirugía ortognática. Se consideró algunos datos del análisis cefalométrico de Steiner y el análisis cefalométrico de Ricketts en sentido sagital para determinar la clase esqueletal facial. A nivel transversal se determinó la dimensión transversal facial, dimensión transversal maxilar y dimensión transversal mandibular. A nivel vertical se determinó la dimensión vertical oclusal y dimensión vertical total. Al comparar las mediciones transversales y verticales entre sujetos de sexo femenino y masculino, se observó que los hombres presentaban mayores dimensiones que las mujeres (p=0,0001) en todos los análisis realizados. Los sujetos clase III presentaron mayor dimensión transversal facial (p=0,0002) y transversal mandibular (p=0,001) que los sujetos clase II. Además, se observó que los sujetos clase III presentaban mayor dimensión vertical total (p=0,002) que los sujetos clase II; Es posible concluir que existe características faciales transversales y verticales que se pueden relacionar con la posición sagital de las estructuras maxilo-mandibulares. PALABRAS CLAVE: deformidad facial, cirugía ortognática, asimetría facial, cefalometría.

show abstract

Craniofacial features affecting mandibular asymmetries in skeletal Class II patients

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Is the pattern of mandibular asymmetry in mild craniofacial microsomia comparable to non-syndromic class II asymmetry?

Is the pattern of mandibular asymmetry in mild craniofacial microsomia comparable to non-syndromic class II asymmetry?

Prevalence of mandibular asymmetry in different skeletal sagittal patterns:

Relación Transversal, Vertical y Sagital en Sujetos con Deformidad Facial Candidatos a Cirugía Ortognática

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About