4.5 Article

Does Sex, Skeletal Class and Mandibular Asymmetry Affect Tooth Length and Asymmetry in Tooth Length?

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym14051069

关键词

tooth length; sexual dimorphism; mandibular asymmetry; skeletal class; orthodontic treatment planning; orthodontics; dentistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified sexual dimorphism in tooth lengths among orthodontic patients, but did not find a link between mandibular asymmetry and asymmetry in tooth length. Additionally, a relationship was found between skeletal class and tooth length differences in certain measurements.
Introduction: The aim of our cross-sectional study is to determine whether there is a link between sex, skeletal class and mandibular asymmetry in orthodontic patients, with tooth length and asymmetry in tooth length on contralateral sides of the mandible. Methods: As the source for relevant data to answer this question, 3D cone-beam tomography (CBCT) images of a total of 95 future orthodontic patients were retrospectively selected from private practice records and were analyzed. The CBCT images were part of routine orthodontic diagnosis. Patients were divided into three groups (Class I, Class III with asymmetry and Class III without asymmetry) based on skeletal variables assessed on orthodontic cephalometric images and frontal photos of the face. Three null hypotheses were developed, and a series of statistical tests was performed in order to support or reject them. Results: We have established that there exists a sexual dimorphism in some of the teeth's lengths in our sample. Furthermore, we failed to find a link between mandibular asymmetry and asymmetry in tooth length. We have also found a link between skeletal class and tooth length differences in some of the analyzed measurements. Conclusions: Computational models used to design orthodontic appliances and to plan orthodontic treatment should be more individualized to consider a patient's sex and skeletal class.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据