4.3 Article

Evaluation of mandibular volume classified by vertical skeletal dimensions with cone-beam computed tomography

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 86, Issue 6, Pages 949-954

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/103015-732.1

Keywords

Cone-beam computed tomography; Mandibular volume; Maxillofacial morphology; Skeletal pattern

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the relationship between anteroposterior and vertical differences in maxillofacial morphology and mandibular volume. Materials and Methods: Subjects comprised 213 Japanese adults (84 males and 129 females) who were divided into three groups based on mandibular basal arch (ANB) and Wits, measured in a cephalometric analysis: Class I (-1 degrees <= ANB < 4 degrees, -1 mm <= Wits < 0 mm), Class II (ANB >= 4 degrees, Wits >= 0), and Class III (ANB < -1 degrees, Wits < -1 mm). Subjects were also divided into three groups based on the mandibular plane angle (Mp), as follows: hypodivergent (Mp < 23 degrees), normodivergent (Mp = 23-30 degrees), and hyperdivergent (Mp > 30 degrees) groups. Mandibular volume was measured from cone-beam computed tomographic images that were analyzed using Analyze (TM) image processing software and compared among the three groups in each classification. Results: No significant differences were noted in mandibular volume among Classes I, II, and III. An inverse relationship was found between mandibular volume and Mp, and a significant difference was noted in mandibular volume between the hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups. Conclusions: In addition to two-dimensional analysis, such as lateral cephalometry, three-dimensional information such as volume, provided by cone-beam computed tomography, contributes to a more detailed assessment of maxillofacial morphology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available