PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the ramus thickness in skeletal Class III and Class II patients. METHODS: Forty patients were evaluated using computed tomography scanning. RESULTS: Compared with the Class II patients, the mandibular ramus of Class III patients was thinner. The ramus thickness in retrognathic patients was 8.84 mm and the ramus thickness in prognathic patients was 7.80 mm. CONCLUSION: The ramus is thinner in patients with prognathism than in those with retrognathia.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the ramus thickness in skeletal Class III and Class II patients. METHODS: Forty patients were evaluated using computed tomography scanning. RESULTS: Compared with the Class II patients, the mandibular ramus of Class III patients was thinner. The ramus thickness in retrognathic patients was 8.84 mm and the ramus thickness in prognathic patients was 7.80 mm. CONCLUSION: The ramus is thinner in patients with prognathism than in those with retrognathia.