DETERMINATION OF NORMATIVE CEPHALOMETRIC PARAMETERS ACCORDING TO THE STEINER METHOD FOR UKRAINIAN YOUNG MEN AND YOUNG WOMEN WITH DIFFERENT FACE TYPES

  • I.Yu. Drachevska National Pyrogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
  • М.О. Dmitriev National Pyrogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
  • O.I. Popova National Pyrogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
  • T.V. Chugu National Pyrogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
  • I.V. Gunas National Pyrogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
Keywords: cephalometry according to the Steiner method, Ukrainian young men and young women with orthognathic occlusion, face types, sex differences.

Abstract

In Ukrainian young men (n=49) or young women (n=76) with orthognathic occlusion with different face types, numerous reliable and tendencies of differences of cephalometric parameters by the Stainer method were established. Among the indicators belonging to the second group (indicators of the upper and lower jaws according to the Steiner method), significant differences were found only between young women with a very wide face and other types of faces. Among the indicators belonging to the third group (indicators by the Steiner method that characterize the position of each individual tooth relative to each other, cranial structures and soft tissue profile of the face), more pronounced differences are also found between young women with very wide faces and other facial types; among young men – with representatives with a wide face compared to the middle and narrow face types. Among the cephalometric parameters belonging to the second group of indicators, the expressed manifestations of sexual dimorphism of cephalometric parameters are established only for linear indicators; among the parameters belonging to the third group of indicators, the manifestations of sexual dimorphism are established for both linear and angular indicators.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Narayanan RK, Jeseem MT, Kumar TA. Prevalence of malocclusion among 10-12-year-old schoolchildren in Kozhikode District, Kerala: An epidemiological study. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2016 Jan; 9(1): 50-55. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1333

2. Dmitriev M, Gunas V, Polishchuk S, Olkhova I, Kumar A. Modeling of Central Incisors Position Indicators in boys and girls according to CC. Steiner method for Forensic Dental Identification. The Official Publication of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. 2020 Jul; 42(3): 155-60. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0848.2020.00043.3

3. Soboń JS, Cherkasova OV, Gunas VI, Babych LV, Kotsyura OO. Correlations of linear sizes of molars with cephalometric indicators of practically healthy men of the southern region of Ukraine. Biomedical and Biosocial Anthropology. 2020 Sep; 30(38): 36- 46. https://doi.org/10.31393/bba38-2020-06

4. Gunas VI, Kotsyura OO, Babych LV, Shevchuk YG, Cherkasova OV. Features correlations of the sizes of molars with cephalometric indicators of men of the western region of Ukraine. Reports of Morphology. 2020 Oct 12; 26(2): 51-61. https://doi.org/10.31393/morphology-journal-2020- 26(2)-08

5. Marchenko АV, Shinkaruk-Dykovytska MМ, Pozur TP, Gunas VI, Orlovskiy VO. Models of individual linear dimensions necessary for the construction of the correct form of dental arches in young men with a wide face, depending on the features of odontometric and cephalometric indicators. Wiadomosci lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland: 1960). 2020; 73(6): 1103-7. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202006104

6. Phulari B. An atlas on cephalometric landmarks. JP Medical Ltd; 2013. 230 р.

7. Doroshenko SI, Kulginskii EA. Osnovy` telerentgenografii. K., Zdorov'ya; 2007. 72 s. (Russian).

8. Profit WR. Sovremennaya ortodontiya (4-e izd., per. s angl.). M.: MEDpress-inform; 2015. 560 s. (Russian).

9. Dmitriev МО. Zviazky osnovnykh kranialnykh pokaznykiv z kharakterystykamy polozhennia zubiv verkhnoi i nyzhnoi shchelep ta profilem miakykh tkanyn oblychchia v yunakiv i divchat. Visnyk morfolohii. 2017; 23(1): 125-31. (Ukrainian).

10. Drachevska IYu, Dmitriev МО, Perera Clifford, Shevchenko VM, Gunas IV. Determination of cephalometric parameters, which usually do not change during surgical and orthodontic treatment depending on facial types in Ukrainian young men and young women with orthognathic occlusion. Biomedical and Biosocial Anthropology. 2020; 41: 18-23.

11. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod. 1959; 29: 8-29.

12. Maahs MA, Kiszewski AE, Rosa RF, Santa Maria FD, Prates FB, Zen PR. Cephalometric skeletal evaluation of patients with Incontinentia Pigmenti. Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 2014 May 1; 4(2): 88-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2014.05.002

13. Pierre OZ, Charles B, Catherine E, Jules O. Cephalometric Characteristics of Cameroonian Adults: Dimensional Analysis of 80 Cases. Dentistry. 2020 Mar 20; 10(3): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.36349/easjdom 2019.v01i06.003

14. Vedprakash SR, Mustafa M, Subhash V, Sharma P. Cephalometric characteristics of Indian adults: with special reference to Delhi NCR hospital. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine. 2021; 8(04): 645-52.

15. Rajawat I, Venkataramana V, Patil P, Guram G, Gupta N, Lau M, Thakkar P, Shah DM. A cephalometric evaluation for co-relation of different facial types with occlusal plane in dentulous and edentulous patients. OHDM. December. 2014; 13(4): 116-20. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.175694

16. Rana T, Khanna R, Tikku T, Sachan K. Relationship of maxilla to cranial base in different facial types–a cephalometric evaluation. Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 2012 Jan 1; 2(1): 30-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-4268(12)60008-6

17. Prasad PN, Ansari R, Rana T, Rawat N. Assessment of Beta Angle among the various Facial Types in Garhwali Population-A Cephalometric Evaluation. Orthodontic Journal of Nepal. 2013 Dec 6; 3(1): 37-40.

18. Sidiropoulou S. Study of craniofacial relations and facial types in Greek population with normal occlusion. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. 2015; 19(3): 132- 40. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjdm-2015-0048

19. Valletta R, Pango A, Tortora G, Rongo R, Simeon V, Spagnuolo G, D’Antò V. Association between gingival biotype and facial typology through cephalometric evaluation and three-dimensional facial scanning. Applied Sciences. 2019 Jan; 9(23): 5057. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235057

20. Roy AS, Tandon P, Chandna AK, Sharma VP, Nagar A, Singh GP. Jaw morphology and vertical facial types: a cephalometric appraisal. Journal of Orofacial Research. 2012; 131-8.

21. Salti L, Holtfreter B, Pink C, Habes M, Biffar R, Kiliaridis S, Krey KF, Bülow R, Völzke H, Kocher T, Daboul A. Estimating effects of craniofacial morphology on gingival recession and clinical attachment loss. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2017 Apr; 44(4): 363-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12661

22. Řeháček A, Janega M, Hofmanova P, Dostalova T. Cephalometric floating norms for Czech adults. Prague medical report. 2012 Jan 1; 113(4): 271-8.
Published
2021-12-08
How to Cite
Drachevska, I., DmitrievМ., Popova, O., Chugu, T., & Gunas, I. (2021). DETERMINATION OF NORMATIVE CEPHALOMETRIC PARAMETERS ACCORDING TO THE STEINER METHOD FOR UKRAINIAN YOUNG MEN AND YOUNG WOMEN WITH DIFFERENT FACE TYPES. Ukrainian Dental Almanac, (4), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.31718/2409-0255.4.2021.05
Section
ORTHODONTICS