SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eastern Journal of Medicine / 2019 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

An Assessment of Gender Difference in Visual Cephalometric Analysis Applied to Class I Individuals: A Preliminary Study

Zekiye KARACA BOZDAĞ
AYLA KÜRKÇÜOĞLU
Ayça ÜSTDAL GÜNEY
Yener ÇAM
ÖZKAN OĞUZ
Pages
1–7
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our work continues by increasing the number of data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cephalometric analyzes play an important role in determining the individual's skeletal and dental structure, soft tissue and their relationship to each other.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study was performed on right lateral cephalometric views of 80 healthy (40 women, 40 men) Turkish individuals in Anatolia aged 21-71, with Class I skeletal (ANB=2.19±1.43).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our work continues by increasing the number of data.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Cephalometric analyzes play an important role in determining the individual's skeletal and dental structure, soft tissue and their relationship to each other. Visual cephalometric analyzes are primarily based on determining the fitness between mid-face and maxilla, then positioning the mandible relative to the midface. Thus, as in the other cephalometric analyzes, changes related to the treatment and development of the current state of the individual are determined. In the study we aimed to reveal sex-related changes of four different angles and compare them with the norm. This study was performed on right lateral cephalometric views of 80 healthy (40 women, 40 men) Turkish individuals in Anatolia aged 21-71, with Class I skeletal (ANB=2.19±1.43). In all images, angles formed by long axis of the upper incisor and palatal plan (U1/PP); the long axis of the lower incisor and mandibular plan (A1/MP); the long axes of the lower and incisor (U1/A1); the palatal plan and mandibular plan (PP/MP) were analyzed. The PP/MP value of women was found to be significantly higher than men’s (p<0.01), while no significant difference was found between the U1/PP, A1/MP and U1/A1. Statistically significant negative correlations were found between correlations of all angular measurements in both genders (p<0.05). As a result, gender should also be considered as another factor beside the knowledge of angles of U1/PP, A1/MP, U1/A1 and PP/MP in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Our work continues by increasing the number of data.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZDAĞ, Z. K., KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, A., GÜNEY, A. Ü., ÇAM, Y., OĞUZ, Ö. (2019). An Assessment of Gender Difference in Visual Cephalometric Analysis Applied to Class I Individuals: A Preliminary Study. Eastern Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 1–7. https://ajindex.com/articles/189243

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Fastlicht J. A visual cephalometric analysis. J Clin Orthod. 2000; 68: 354-360.
  2. Abdulazeez F, Köklü A. Fastlicht visual Sefalometrik analizinin toplumumuzdaki normları. Doktora tezi. T. C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü 2014; Ankara (in Turkish). Lundström A, Forsberg CM, Peck S, McWilliam J. A proportional analysis of the soft tissue facial profile in young adults with normal occlusion. The Angle Orthodontist 1992; 62(2): 128-133.
  3. Enöz M, Yanardağ H, Güven M. Osas’lı hastaların üst solunum yollarının değerlendirilmesindeki kullanılan teknikler. KBBForum 2006; 5(3) (in Turkish). Uzel İ, Enacar A. Ortodontide Sefalometri. Yargıçoğlu Matbaası, 1. basım, İstanbul, 1984; 10- 14 (in Turkish). Ruhi N, Gökhan Ö. Arnett yumuşak doku sefalometrik analizi. S.D.Ü Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 2012; 3(2): 96-102 (in Turkish). Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103:395-411.
  4. Farkas LG, Hajnis K, Posnick JC. Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993; 30: 1-12.
  5. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 2005; 16: 615-646.
  6. Baral P, Lobo SW, Menezes RG, et al. An anthropometric study of facial height among four endogamous communities in the Sunsari district of Nepal. Singapore Med J 2010; 51(3): 212-215.
  7. Jahanshahi M, Golalipour MJ, Heidari K. Theeffect of ethnicity on facial anthropometry in Northern Iran. Singapore Med J 2008; 49(11): 940-943.
  8. Farkas LG, Tompson BD, Katic MJ, et al. Differences between direct (anthropometric) and indirect (cephalometric) measurements of the skull. J Craniofac Surg 2002; 13: 105-108.
  9. Uzel İ, Enacar A. Ortodontide Sefalometri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Basımevi 2000; Adana (in Turkish). Ülgen M. Ortodonti anomaliler, sefalometri, etiyoloji, büyüme ve gelişim, tanı. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları Bölüm 8. 2001 Ankara (in Turkish). Ajayi EO. Cephalometric norms of Nigerian children. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005; 128: 653-656.
  10. Ricketts RM, Schulhof RJ, Bagha L. Orientation Sella-Nasion or Frankfort Horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976; 69: 648-655. Jacobson A. Application of witts appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976; 70: 179-198. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 729-755. Co