Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
World Journal of Orthodontics
WJO Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: ORTHODONTICS
ORTHODONTICS
The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement

Formerly World Journal of Orthodontics

Edited by
Rafi Romano, DMD, MSc (Editor-in-Chief)

ISSN 2160-2999 (print) / ISSN 2160-3006 (online)

Visit the ORTHODONTICS: The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement Facebook page

Publication:
Spring 2009
Volume 10 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

Dental and Alveolar Arch Asymmetries in Normal Occlusion and Class II Division 1 And Class II Subdivision Malocclusions

Tancan Uysal, DDS, PhD, Gokmen Kurt, DDS, PhD, Sabri Ilhan Ramoglu, DDS, PhD

Pages: 7–15
PMID: 19388427

Aim: To compare the degree of intra- and interarch dentoalveolar asymmetry among patients with a normal occlusion, Class II Division 1 malocclusion, and Class II subdivision malocclusion. Methods: The sample comprised dental casts of 150 (72 males [ages 22.1 ± 3.1] and 78 females [ages 21.1 ± 2.1]) normal occlusion subjects, 106 (45 males [ages 17.8 ± 1.8] and 61 females [ages 16.5 ± 2.9]) Class II Division 1 patients, and 40 (18 males [ages 15.8 ± 2.8] and 22 females [ages 15.2 ± 3.3]) Class II subdivision malocclusions. Maxillary and mandibular reference lines were constructed and used for the intra-arch asymmetry measurements. Thirty-six width measurements were performed on the dental casts of each subject. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparisons of the groups, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed to determine the interarch associations. Results: No statistically significant intra-arch asymmetry was found for maxillary and mandibular dental arch and alveolar width in any of the three groups. All variables were larger on the right side in the normal occlusion subjects. Further, the left side maxillary dental and alveolar arch width measurements were larger in the Class II Division 1 group. None of these differences, however, were statistically significant. In the Class II subdivision group, only the Class II sides’ mandibular dental arch measurements were larger (P < .05). Maxillary and mandibular total dental arch and alveolar width dimensions differed among the groups (P < .001). Except for maxillary and mandibular canine alveolar width, opposing interarch dental and alveolar landmarks were significantly correlated with the transverse dimensions. Conclusion: Although some landmarks in the current study showed statistically significant and insignificant differences, the mean arithmetic differences were small, inconsistent, and not likely clinically important. World J Orthod 2009;10:7–15.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site
to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog