Christian Reis Lemes1, Carolina Fernandes Tozzi1, Saulo Gribel2, Bruno Frazão Gribel3, Giovana Cherubini Venezian1, Caroline do Carmo Menezes1, William Custodio4. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University Center of the Hermínio Ometto Foundation, FHO, Av. Dr. Maximiliano Baruto, 500, Jd. Universitário, Araras, SP, 13607-339, Brazil. 2. Department of Dentistry, Faculdade Modal, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 3. Department of Digital Dentistry, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Escola de Pós Graudação em Odontologia, SCEO, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 4. Department of Orthodontics, University Center of the Hermínio Ometto Foundation, FHO, Av. Dr. Maximiliano Baruto, 500, Jd. Universitário, Araras, SP, 13607-339, Brazil. williamcustodio@fho.edu.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify mandibular ramus height and condylar distances asymmetry indexes in adult patients with different vertical facial growth pattern using Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted by using CBCT of 159 patients (mean age 26.36 ± 5.32 years). Vistadent 3D® software was used to determine the facial pattern in 3 groups (N = 53): hypodivergent, normodivergent and hyperdivergent-by Ricketts VERT index. Mandibular ramus height and the condylar linear distance in relation to the median sagittal plane were evaluated. The asymmetry index was calculated considering the right and left sides. Data were analyzed by generalized linear models and Tukey post-hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significantly lower values were found for the left and right mandibular ramus height in the hyperdivergent skeletal pattern (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference for condylar and intercondylar distances among the facial groups (P > 0.05). Asymmetry indexes (mandibular ramus height and condylar distance) were similar, and no statistically significant differences were found among the skeletal patterns. In most subjects, the severity of mandibular ramus height asymmetry varied from light to not clinically significant independently of the facial type. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that vertical facial growth pattern not affected the asymmetry index of mandibular ramus height and the intercondylar distance. The results also demonstrated significantly shorter mandibular ramus height for the hyperdivergent skeletal pattern individuals.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify mandibular ramus height and condylar distances asymmetry indexes in adult patients with different vertical facial growth pattern using Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted by using CBCT of 159 patients (mean age 26.36 ± 5.32 years). Vistadent 3D® software was used to determine the facial pattern in 3 groups (N = 53): hypodivergent, normodivergent and hyperdivergent-by Ricketts VERT index. Mandibular ramus height and the condylar linear distance in relation to the median sagittal plane were evaluated. The asymmetry index was calculated considering the right and left sides. Data were analyzed by generalized linear models and Tukey post-hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significantly lower values were found for the left and right mandibular ramus height in the hyperdivergent skeletal pattern (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference for condylar and intercondylar distances among the facial groups (P > 0.05). Asymmetry indexes (mandibular ramus height and condylar distance) were similar, and no statistically significant differences were found among the skeletal patterns. In most subjects, the severity of mandibular ramus height asymmetry varied from light to not clinically significant independently of the facial type. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that vertical facial growth pattern not affected the asymmetry index of mandibular ramus height and the intercondylar distance. The results also demonstrated significantly shorter mandibular ramus height for the hyperdivergent skeletal pattern individuals.
Authors: Kamil Nelke; Klaudiusz Łuczak; Maciej Janeczek; Edyta Pasicka; Monika Morawska-Kochman; Maciej Guziński; Maciej Dobrzyński Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 4.614