CEPHALOMETRIC SKELETAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF SKULL FOR TWO AGE GROUPS PATIENTS WITH CLASS ONE MALOCCLUSION BY THREE DIMENSIONAL CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Objective: The purpose of our research was to study comparative cephalometric analysis between left and right sides of head and evaluate the skeletal facial symmetry in patients with class 1 malocclusion by 3D Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Pre-treatment by 3D Cone-beam computed tomography radiographs for 20 patients of two age groups with class 1 malocclusion was undergone for 11 angular and 4 liner measurements from right and left sides, anteroposterior, vertical and frontal view by hand except the hard landmarks determination. Chi-test was used to compare the result of both sides (P < 0.05). Results: No difference was found between left and right analysis for linear measurements as for the angular cephalometric measurements. Conclusion: Measurements of skeletal analysis by 3D CBCT cephalograms from right side were found to be similar to left side. So, we can use the left analysis for orthodontics diagnosis as right side. Also, the both sides analysis can be used for symmetric analysis reasons.
2. Caillouel, B., REVIEWS AND ABSTRACTS-A quantitative analysis of the difference between right-and left-facing lateral cephalograms. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002. 121(3): p. 329.
3. Broadbent Sr, B., B. Broadbent Jr, and W.H. Golden, Bolton standards of dentofacial development growth, St. Louis, CV Mosby, 1975.
4. Flis, P., et al., Orthodontics. Kyiv, MEDICINE, 2008: p. 221-242.
5. Katherine Kula , A.G., Cephalometry in Orthodontics 2D and 3D-Reduced.pdf. 2018, USA: quintessence 14-15.
6. Harrell, W.E., et al., Applications of CBCT in Orthodontics, in Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography. 2018, Springer. p. 645-714.
7. Dindaroğlu,, F. and E. Yetkiner, Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2016. 29(1): p. 16-21.
8. Ko, E.W.-C., C.S. Huang, and Y.R. Chen, Characteristics and corrective outcome of face asymmetry by orthognathic surgery. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2009. 67(10): p. 2201-2209.
9. Palomo, J.M., et al., A longitudinal 3-dimensional size and shape comparison of untreated Class I and Class II subjects. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2005. 127(5): p. 584-591.
10. Moss, M.L. and L. Salentijn, The capsular matrix. American journal of orthodontics, 1969. 56(5): p. 474-490.
11. Graber, T., Orthodontics: principles and practice, ed. 3, Philadelphia, 1972. WB Saunders Company.
12. Chebib, F. and A. Chamma, Indices of craniofacial asymmetry. The Angle Orthodontist, 1981. 51(3): p. 214-226.
13. Guedes, P.d.A., et al., A comparative study of manual vs. computerized cephalometric analysis. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 2010. 15(2): p. 44-51.
14. Baskin, H. and G.J. Cisneros, A comparison of two computer cephalometric programs. Journal of clinical orthodontics: JCO, 1997. 31(4): p. 231-233.
15. Knott, V., Change in cranial base measures of human males and females from age 6 years to early adulthood. Growth, 1971. 35(2): p. 145-158.
16. Bishara, S.E. and W. Saunders, Textbook of orthodontics. 2001: Saunders Book Company. 41-49.
17 Björk, A., Sutural growth of the upper face studied by the implant method. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 1966. 24(2): p. 109-127.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.