The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on August 10, 2005
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2005 27(6):568-578; doi:10.1093/ejo/cji061
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Age-related changes in sagittal relationship between the maxilla and mandible
* Department of Orthodontics and *** Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany and ** Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland
Address for correspondence Dr Christopher J. Lux, Department of Orthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany, E-mail: christopher_lux{at}med.uni-heidelberg.de
The aim of the study was to assess age-related changes in sagittal jaw relationship during pre-pubertal and pubertal development on the basis of angular [ANB, anteroposterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) and A–B plane angle] and linear (Wits, AF–BF, App–Bpp, and App–Pgpp) measurements. Lateral cephalograms of orthodontically untreated subjects were evaluated at 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 years of age. Cephalometric standards and age-related changes were determined on the basis of Class I subjects with a good occlusion (n = 18, 10 males and 8 females).
With respect to changes related to growth, the main findings were, in both genders, a statistically significant age-related decrease in ANB angle, App–Bpp and App–Pgpp, a significant increase in APDI, but no age-related change in Wits. A reduction of sagittal jaw distance during pre-pubertal and pubertal development was observed arising from a relative dominance of sagittal mandibular growth.
For an evaluation of differences concerning jaw relationship in Class II subjects, a group with Class II division 1 malocclusions (n = 17) and a group with Class II division 2 malocclusions (n = 12 were compared with two control groups, i.e. the good occlusion group and a Class I group (n = 37). Conclusions about the sagittal discrepancy in Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 subjects depended on the geometric reference used in the various parameters, and further research is called for with respect to the diagnostic performance of the various measurements. Differences between Class II subjects and controls present at 15 years of age were already established at 7 years of age, but were less pronounced.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Wellens Improving the concordance between various anteroposterior cephalometric measurements using Procrustes analysis Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2009; 31(5): 503 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Hanggi, U. M. Teuscher, M. Roos, and T. A. Peltomaki Long-term changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions following activator-headgear and fixed appliance treatment Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2008; 30(6): 598 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|