Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Alveolar bone thickness and lower incisor position in skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2013³â 43±Ç 3È£ p.134 ~ 140
Baysal Asli, Ucar Faruk Izzet, Buyuk Suleyman Kutalmis, Ozer Torun, Uysal Tancan,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
 ( Baysal Asli ) - Izmir Katip Celebi University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
 ( Ucar Faruk Izzet ) - Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
 ( Buyuk Suleyman Kutalmis ) - Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
 ( Ozer Torun ) - Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
 ( Uysal Tancan ) - Izmir Katip Celebi University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics

Abstract


Objective: To evaluate lower incisor position and bony support between patients with Class II average- and high-angle malocclusions and compare with the patients presenting Class I malocclusions. Methods: CBCT records of 79 patients were divided into 2 groups according to sagittal jaw relationships: Class I and II. Each group was further divided into average- and high-angle subgroups. Six angular and 6 linear measurements were performed. Independent samples t-test, Kruskal?Wallis, and Dunn post-hoc tests were performed for statistical comparisons. Results: Labial alveolar bone thickness was significantly higher in Class I group compared to Class II group (p = 0.003). Lingual alveolar bone angle (p = 0.004), lower incisor protrusion (p = 0.007) and proclination (p = 0.046) were greatest in Class II average-angle patients. Spongious bone was thinner (p = 0.016) and root apex was closer to the labial cortex in high-angle subgroups when compared to the Class II average-angle subgroup (p = 0.004). Conclusions: Mandibular anterior bony support and lower incisor position were different between average- and high-angle Class II patients. Clinicians should be aware that the range of lower incisor movement in high-angle Class II patients is limited compared to average- angle Class II patients.

Å°¿öµå

3 Dimensional diagnosis and treatment planning; Class II

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed