OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the significance of crown-root angles (CRAs) by testing the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in deviations of third-order angles to axial inclination values between Angle Class II division 2 incisors and a neutral occlusion control sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group comprised n(total) = 130 whites with either Angle Class II division 2 (n(1) = 62; group A) or neutral (n(2) = 68; control group B) occlusal relationships. Upper central incisor inclination (U1) was assessed with reference to the cephalometric lines NA and palatal plane (U1NA/deg, U1PP/deg). Craniofacial sagittal and vertical relations were classified using angles SNA, SNB, ANB, and NSL-PP. Third-order angles were derived from corresponding dental cast pairs using an incisor inclination gauge. Welch's two-sample t-tests (alpha-level: .05) were used to test the null hypothesis. Single linear regression was applied to determine third-order angle values as a function of axial inclination values (U1NA, U1PP) or sagittal craniofacial structures (ANB angle), separately for group A and B. RESULTS: The discrepancy between axial inclination (U1NA, U1PP) and third-order angles is significantly different (P < .001) between groups A and B. Regression analysis revealed a simply moderate correlation between third-order measurements and axial inclinations or sagittal craniofacial structures. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis is rejected. The results of this study warn against the use of identical third-order angles irrespective of diminished CRAs typical for Angle Class II division 2 subjects. Routine CRA assessment may be considered in orthodontic treatment planning of Angle Class II division 2 cases.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the significance of crown-root angles (CRAs) by testing the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in deviations of third-order angles to axial inclination values between Angle Class II division 2 incisors and a neutral occlusion control sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group comprised n(total) = 130 whites with either Angle Class II division 2 (n(1) = 62; group A) or neutral (n(2) = 68; control group B) occlusal relationships. Upper central incisor inclination (U1) was assessed with reference to the cephalometric lines NA and palatal plane (U1NA/deg, U1PP/deg). Craniofacial sagittal and vertical relations were classified using angles SNA, SNB, ANB, and NSL-PP. Third-order angles were derived from corresponding dental cast pairs using an incisor inclination gauge. Welch's two-sample t-tests (alpha-level: .05) were used to test the null hypothesis. Single linear regression was applied to determine third-order angle values as a function of axial inclination values (U1NA, U1PP) or sagittal craniofacial structures (ANB angle), separately for group A and B. RESULTS: The discrepancy between axial inclination (U1NA, U1PP) and third-order angles is significantly different (P < .001) between groups A and B. Regression analysis revealed a simply moderate correlation between third-order measurements and axial inclinations or sagittal craniofacial structures. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis is rejected. The results of this study warn against the use of identical third-order angles irrespective of diminished CRAs typical for Angle Class II division 2 subjects. Routine CRA assessment may be considered in orthodontic treatment planning of Angle Class II division 2 cases.