Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 5/2017

01-09-2017 | Original Article

Craniofacial features affecting mandibular asymmetries in skeletal Class II patients

Authors: Guilherme Thiesen, B. F. Gribel, M. P. M. Freitas, D. R. Oliver, K. B. Kim

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics affecting different intensities of mandibular asymmetry in skeletal Class II adults using three-dimensional images. This study is clinically relevant since it allows professionals to evaluate the morphological components related to these deformities and more carefully obtain correct diagnosis and treatment plan for such patients.

Methods

Cone-beam computed tomography data of 120 Class II patients (40 with relative symmetry, 40 with moderate asymmetry, and 40 with severe asymmetry) were imported to SimPlant Ortho Pro® 2.0 software (Dental Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Three reference planes were established and linear measurements were performed from specific landmarks to these planes, comparing the deviated side and the contralateral side in each group, as well as the differences between groups. The correlation between midline mandibular asymmetry and other variables was also evaluated. Statistical analyses considered a significance level of 5%.

Results

Comparing the values obtained on the deviated side and on the contralateral side, there were significant differences for patients with moderate asymmetry and severe asymmetry. However, differences were seen more often in severe mandibular asymmetries. In those patients, there was a significant correlation of the gnathion deviation with lower dental midline deviation, difference in the lateral gonion positions, difference in the mandibular rami heights, and difference in the jugale vertical displacements.

Conclusions

For skeletal Class II patients with mandibular asymmetry, some craniofacial features are related to chin deviation and require proper evaluation, including the bilateral differences in the ramus height, mandibular body length, transverse and vertical positioning of the gonion and jugale points.
Literature
1.
Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN (2009) Anteroposterior and vertical components of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 79(5):859–866CrossRefPubMed
2.
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (2013) Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116(2):238–257CrossRef
3.
Angle EH (1907) Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth, 7th edn. SS White Manufacturing, Philadelphia
4.
Ast DB, Carlos JP, Cons DC (1965) Prevalence and characteristics of malocclusion among senior high school students in up-state New York. Am J Orthod 51(6):437–445CrossRefPubMed
5.
Burgersdijk R, Truin GJ, Frankenmolen F, Kalsbeek H, van’t Hof M, Mulder J (1991) Malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need of 15-74-year-old Dutch adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 19(2):64–67CrossRefPubMed
6.
Celikoglu M, Akpinar S, Yavuz I (2010) The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 15(5):e791–e796CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang ZC, Lai HH, Lu SC, Kok SH (2016) A new classification of mandibular asymmetry and evaluation of surgical-orthodontic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 44(6):676–683CrossRefPubMed
8.
Damstra J, Fourie Z, DeWit M, Ren Y (2012) A three-dimensional comparison of a morphometric and conventional cephalometric midsagittal planes for craniofacial asymmetry. Clinical Oral Investig 16(1):285–294CrossRef
9.
Emrich RE, Brodie AG, Blayney JR (1965) Prevalence of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 malocclusions (Angle) in an urban population. An epidemiological study. J Dent Res 44(5):947–953CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT (2004) Three-dimensional assessment of facial soft-tissue asymmetry before and after orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(5):396–404CrossRefPubMed
12.
Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y (2002) Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod 72(1):28–35PubMed
13.
Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH et al (2006) Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130(6):779–785CrossRef
14.
Kim EJ, Palomo JM, Kim SS, Lim HJ, Lee KM, Hwang HS (2011) Maxillofacial characteristics affecting chin deviation between mandibular retrusion and prognathism patients. Angle Orthod 81(6):988–993CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Baik HS (2013) Morphologic relationship between the cranial base and the mandible in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(3):330–340CrossRef
16.
Masuoka N, Momoi Y, Ariji Y, Nawa H, Muramatsu A, Goto S, Ariji E (2005) Can cephalometric indices and subjective evaluation be consistent for facial asymmetry? Angle Orthod 75(4):651–655PubMed
17.
Masuoka N, Muramatsu A, Ariji Y, Nawa H, Goto S, Ariji E (2007) Discriminative thresholds of cephalometric indexes in the subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 131(5):609–613CrossRef
18.
McNamara JA Jr (1981) Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod 51(3):177–202PubMed
19.
Minich CM, Araújo EA, Behrents RG, Buschang PH, Tanaka OM, Kim KB (2013) Evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in angle Class II subdivision malocclusions with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(1):57–66CrossRef
20.
Ovsenik M, Perinetti G, Zhurov A, Richmond S, Primozic J (2014) Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry among pre-pubertal class III subjects: a controlled study. Eur J Orthod 36(4):431–435CrossRefPubMed
21.
Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Moray LJ (1998) Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 13(2):97–106
22.
Quinto-Sánchez M, Adhikari K, Acuña-Alonzo V et al (2015) Facial asymmetry and genetic ancestry in Latin American admixed populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 157(1):58–70CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sanders DA, Rigali PH, Neace WP, Uribe F, Nanda R (2010) Skeletal and dental asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusions using cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138(5):542.e1-20
24.
Schwartz HC (2011) Efficient surgical management of mandibular asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(3):645–654CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Severt TR, Proffit WR (1997) The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 12(3):171–176PubMed
27.
Sievers MM, Larson BE, Gaillard PR, Wey A (2012) Asymmetry assessment using cone beam CT A Class I and Class II patient comparison. Angle Orthod 82(3):410–417CrossRefPubMed
28.
Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Pereira KCR, Freitas MPM (2016) Is there an association between skeletal asymmetry and tooth absence? Dental Press J Orthod 21(4):73–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Tweed C (1954) The frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 24(3):121–169
31.
Willems G, De Bruyne I, Verdonck A, Fieuws S, Carels C (2001) Prevalence of dentofacial characteristics in a Belgian orthodontic population. Clin Oral Investig 5(4):220–226CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Craniofacial features affecting mandibular asymmetries in skeletal Class II patients
Authors
Guilherme Thiesen
B. F. Gribel
M. P. M. Freitas
D. R. Oliver
K. B. Kim
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Medizin
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0100-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Determination of forces on a split palatal screw after rapid maxillary expansion

Original Article

Mechanical load exerted by PET-G aligners during mesial and distal derotation of a mandibular canine

Original Article

Effects of malocclusions on facial attractiveness and their correlations with the divine proportion

Original Article

Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models

Original Article

Cephalometric and dental arch changes to Haas-type rapid maxillary expander anchored to deciduous vs permanent molars: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Mitteilungen DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO