medigraphic.com
ISSN 1028-9933 (Electronic)

2022, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

RIC 2022; 101 (2)

Upper jaw length in relation to facial biotype in individuals from Cuenca, Ecuador

Espinoza-Ochoa GI, Lima-Illescas MV, Jara-Vergara NN, Jiménez-Romero MN

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 1-11
PDF size: 852.04 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Craniofacial growth and development can be evaluated through lateral head radiographs, in order to provide a good diagnosis and an effective treatment plan.
Objective: To identify the relationship between the length of the upper jaw and the facial biotype in individuals aged 18 to 45 years in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador, during the year 2019.
Method: A quantitative, descriptive and relational study was carried out; the sample was of 160 lateral head radiographs obtained in a maxillofacial dental radiology center in the city of Cuenca. AutoCAD software was used for the cephalometric tracing. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey's post hoc test were used with a reliability level of 95% (p<0.05). Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between maxillary length (mm) and skeletal measurement.
Results: It was found that the length of the upper jaw according to facial biotype is shorter in the upper jaw and increases in the lower; the tall facial biotype presented the shortest maxillary length (52.18±4.20 mm) and the highest average was the medium-low (54.37±4.15 mm). In males, the highest average was observed in the low biotype (55.38±4.55 mm) and the lowest value was in the medium high biotype (53.10±3.23 mm); in females, the highest average was found in the medium-low facial biotype (53.84±4.01 mm) and the lowest average was in the high biotype (51.64±3.68 mm).
Conclusions: As the facial biotype increases, the length of the maxillary decreases. There is no significant relationship between maxillary length and age, or between length and sex.


REFERENCES

  1. Huanca-Gonzales C, Casas-Apayco L, Ghersi-Miranda H. Correlación entre el patrón facial y esquelético de pacientes con deformidad dentofacial Clase II. Rev Latinoam Ortod Odontoped [Internet]. 2018 [citado 21/03/2022]. Disponible en: https://www.ortodoncia.ws/publicaciones/2018/art-11/

  2. Paranhos LR, Ramos AL, Benedicto EN, Maltagliati LÁ, Cardoso MA, Filho LC. Is there any association between facial type and mandibular dental arch form in subjects with normal occlusion? Acta Sci - Heal Sci. 2014; 36(1):129-34.

  3. Cubillo Barahona JB, Benavides Smith J. Principales análisis cefalométricos utilizados para el diagnóstico ortodóntico. Rev Cient Odontol [Internet]. 2006 [citado 21/03/2022]; 2(1):11-7. Disponible en: https://revistaodontologica.colegiodentistas.org/index.php/revista/article/view/337

  4. Knigge RP, McNulty KP, Oh H, Hardin AM, Leary EV, Duren DL, et al. Geometric morphometric analysis of growth patterns among facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2021 [citado 21/03/2022]; 160(3):430-41. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889540621003486

  5. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod [Internet]. 1953 [citado 21/03/2022]; 39(10):729-55. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002941653900827

  6. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Report of a case. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46(10):721-35.

  7. Chen HS, Hsiao SY, Lee KT. Analysis of Facial Skeletal Morphology: Nasal Bone, Maxilla, and Mandible. Biomed Res Int [Internet]. 2021 [citado 21/03/2022]; 2021(599949):[aproximadamente 9 p.]. Disponible en: https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2021/5599949.pdf

  8. Mangla R, Dua V, Khanna M, Singh N, Padmanabhan P. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemp Clin Dent [Inteenet]. 2011 [citado 21/03/2022]; 2(3):200. Disponible en : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22090764/

  9. Sodawala J, Akolkar A, Sodawala F, Gandhi S, Hamdani S, Ali S. Comparison of soft tissue chin thickness at different levels of chin in subjects with various growth patterns. Indian J Dent Res [Internet]. 2020 [citado 21/03/2022]; 31:224-8. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32436901/

  10. Savoldi F, Massetti F, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, Yeung AWK, Tanaka R, et al. Anteroposterior length of the maxillary complex and its relationship with the anterior cranial base: A study on human dry skulls using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod [Internet]. 2021 [citado 21/03/2022]; 91(1):88-97. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032287/

  11. Castillo-Páez JA, Villasmil-Suares LG, Guada-Melet NV. Rasgos antropométricos craneofaciales de interés odontológico forense en la estimación de sexo, grupo étnico y edad. Revisión de la literatura SkULL-FAcIAL. Rev Cient Odontol [Internet]. 2021 [citado 21/03/2022]; 9(1):1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21142/2523-2754-0901-2021-047

  12. Alsulaimani F. Cephalometric Characteristics of Growing Children with Class I, II and III Malocclusions. Life Sci J [Internet]. 2014 [citado 21/03/2022]; 3(II):1-46. Disponible en: http://journal.stainkudus.ac.id/index.php/equilibrium/article/view/1268/1127

  13. Ravikumar DNS, Ramakrishna M, Sharna N, Robindro W. Evaluation of McNamara's analysis in South Indian (Tamil Nadu) children between 8-12 years of age using lateral cephalograms. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res [Internet]. 2019 [citado 21/03/2022]; 9(2):193-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.06.001

  14. Curioca S, Portillo G. Determinación clínica y radiográfica del somatotipo facial en pacientes pediátricos. Rev Odontol Mex [Internet]. 2011 [citado 21/03/2022]; 15:8-13. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-199X2011000100002

  15. Cerda-Peralta B, Schulz-Rosales R, López-Garrido J, Romo-Ormazabal F. Parámetros cefalométricos para determinar biotipo facial en adultos chilenos. Rev Clín Period Implantol Reh Oral [Internet]. 2019 [citado 21/03/2022]; 12(1):8-11. Disponible en: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0719-01072019000100008

  16. Cárdenas JM, Guijarro J, Sánchez W, Murga H, Cárdenas G, Navarro Rincón-Gallardo M, et al. Estudio transversal comparativo de la relación maxilo-mandibular de McNamara aplicadas a sujetos Mexicanos. Int J Morphol [Internet]. 2016 [citado 21/03/2022]; 34(2):454-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022016000200007

  17. Cerna F. Relación entre la longitud maxilar, longitud mandibular y altura facial anteroinferior con la clase esquelética y el biotipo facial [Tesis Estomatología]. Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego; 2017. Disponible en: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/2902

  18. Alió Sanz J, Moreno González J, Muelas fernandez L, Barbería Leanche E, Marín Ferrer J. Situación anteroposterior del maxilar y la mandíbula y su relación con el tipo facial. Ortod Española. 1992 Jul-Ago; 33:187-94.

  19. Grippaudo C, Oliva B, Greco AL, Sferra S, Deli R. Relationship between vertical facial patterns and dental arch form in class II malocclusion. Prog Orthod [Internet]. 2013 [citado 21/03/2022]; 14(1):1-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-43

  20. Puigdollers A. La ortodoncia según Ricketts. Rev Esp Ortod [Internet]. 2000 [citado 21/03/2022]; 30:285-303. Disponible en: https://docplayer.es/2388977-La-ortodoncia-segun-ricketts.html




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com