Sagittal Pattern and Severity of Skeletal Discrepancy in Class II Div 1 Malocclusion

Article Sidebar

Full Text PDF
Published: 2024-12-30
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61919/k4ty9282
Keywords:
Class II Division 1; skeletal discrepancy; mandibular retrognathism; ANB angle; Wits appraisal; Beta angle.

Main Article Content

Maria Zehri
FCPS Trainee Orthodontics, Department of Orthodontics, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, Pakistan
Nasrullah Mengal
Professor and Head of Department, Department of Orthodontics, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, Pakistan
Munir Ahmed
Chief Dental Surgeon, DHO, Quetta, Pakistan
Marium Hasni
Demonstrator, BMC, Quetta, Pakistan
Irfan Ali
Dental Surgeon, SPH, Quetta, Pakistan
Mehreen Butt
Assistant Professor, Dental College, Quetta, Pakistan

Abstract

Background: Class II Division 1 malocclusion encompasses differing skeletal patterns, requiring assessment of anatomical involvement and sagittal discrepancy. Objective: To determine sagittal skeletal patterns and discrepancy severity and examine correlations among cephalometric measurements. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 90 pretreatment lateral cephalograms of patients aged 12–25 years at Bolan Medical College/Sandeman Provincial Hospital, Quetta, from 4 November 2022 to 4 June 2023. ANB angle, Wits appraisal, Beta angle, and angle of convexity were measured manually. Skeletal patterns were recorded, and severity was categorized using ANB. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0, with p<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results: Mean age was 16.4 ± 2.8 years. Mandibular retrognathism occurred in 53 patients (58.9%), maxillary prognathism in 28 (31.1%), and combined involvement in nine (10.0%). Moderate discrepancy affected 40 patients (44.4%), severe discrepancy 34 (37.8%), and mild discrepancy 16 (17.8%). Mean ANB was 6.8 ± 1.9°. ANB correlated positively with Wits appraisal (r=0.72) and convexity (r=0.65), and negatively with Beta angle (r=−0.68); all p<0.001. Conclusion: Mandibular retrognathism predominated, and most patients were classified as having moderate or severe discrepancy. Correlations characterized relationships among measurements without establishing diagnostic superiority or treatment effectiveness.

Article Details

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Maria Zehri et al. 2024. Sagittal Pattern and Severity of Skeletal Discrepancy in Class II Div 1 Malocclusion. Journal of Health, Wellness and Community Research. 2, 2 (Dec. 2024), 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.61919/k4ty9282.

References

1. Fida M. Changes in Angle’s classification of malocclusion in a sample of 28,762 Pakistani school children. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17(3):147-150.

2. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos. 1899;41:248-264.

3. McNamara JA Jr. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(3):177-202.

4. Bishara SE. Class II malocclusions: diagnostic and clinical considerations with and without treatment. Semin Orthod. 1998;4(1):11-20.

5. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1952;22(3):142-145.

6. Taylor CM. Changes in the relationship of nasion, point A and point B and the effect upon ANB. Am J Orthod. 1969;56(2):143-163.

7. Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 1975;67(2):125-138.

8. Bishara SE, Fahl JA, Peterson LC. Longitudinal changes in the Wits appraisal and its relationship to occlusal and skeletal variables. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(4):442-446.

9. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):100-105.

10. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2018. Chapter 5: Diagnosis and Treatment Planning.

11. Ricketts RM. Cephalometric synthesis. Am J Orthod. 1960;46(9):647-73.

12. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod. 1948;34(10):812-40.

13. Bhatia SN, Leighton BC. A manual of facial growth. Oxford University Press; 1993.

14. Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an improved cephalometric analysis for the diagnosis of sagittal and vertical discrepancies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(3):252-8.

15. Williams S, Andersen CE. The morphology of the potential Class III skeletal pattern in the growing child. Am J Orthod. 1986;89(4):302-11.

16. Hasund A, Segner D. The Begg technique and the sagittal correction of Class II. J Clin Orthod. 1988;22(11):682-9.

17. Oktay H. A comparison of ANB, Wits, AF-BF, and APDI measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99(2):122-8.

18. Al-Khateeb SN, Al-Khateeb LT. Ancephalometric evaluation of the sagittal skeletal discrepancy in Class II subjects. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(2):234-8.

19. Cooke MS, Wei SH. The reproducibility of natural head posture: a methodological study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93(4):280-8.

20. Taylor WH. A cephalometric study of the dental and skeletal relationships in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Br J Orthod. 1969;16(3):149-54.