Andrade GD, Portillo GG

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 156-163
PDF size: 247.03 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The intercanine width in the temporal teeth is a predictor of the space that will be required for anterior permanent teeth. Facial type determines the characteristics of lower third in the face. Objective: To determine the average of the intercanine width in the first dentition and facial type (according to Ricketts criteria13) during the period 2003-2005 in 3-year-old children at CENDI UNAM. To identify if there are differences in the intercanine width between genders. To determine the Baume classification for gender and facial type. Methods: A transversal study in 161 children was carried out. The statistical tests used form the SPSS 12.0 program were: Chi-Square for Baume classification for arches and gender; Baume classification for facial type and gender, and ANOVA for intercanine width for arches and gender; and intercanine width for facial type. Results: In the upper arch the average of the intercanine width was 35.80 mm (DE ± 3.16) and 26.68 mm (DE ± 2.76) in the lower arch. The differences were statistically significant in the average of intercanine width in the upper arch for gender (p = .034) than in the lower arch (p = .094). The porcentual distribution for facial type in girls was 37.7% mesofacial, 43.5% brachyfacial y 18.8% dolicofacial. In male the values were as follows: 41.3%, 34.8 and 23.9% respectively. Conclusions: Boys had a longer intercanine width in the upper arch than girls, the longer intercanine width corresponds to brachyfacial type in both arches. Mesofacial was the main facial type in boys and brachyfacial was the main in girls, the main Baume classification in both arches was type I in boys and type II in girls.

REFERENCES

1. Walter LR, Ferelle A, Issao M. Odontología para el bebé. Amolca, 2000.

2. Baume L. Physiological tooth migration and its significance for the development of occlusion. Dent Res 1950; 29: 338-348.

3. White BV, Romald J. Developmental changes of the maxillary and mandibular dental archs. Dent Res 1952; 22: 41-46.

4. Grew J. Intercanine width variability in american indian children. The Angle Orthod 1970; XL: 353-358.

5. Bishara E. Arch width changes from 6 weeks to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; III: 401-409.

6. Moussa R, O’Reilly M. Long-term stability of rapid palatal expander treatment and edgewise mechanotherapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 108: 478-488.

7. Hotz R. Odontopediatría y Odontología para niños y adolescentes. Panamericana, 1977.

8. Mc Donald R. Odontología para el niño y el adolescente. Mundi, 1971.

9. Canut. Ortodoncia clínica. Salvat, 1992.

10. Moore A. Observations on facial growth and its clinical significance. Am J Orthod 1959; 45: 399-423.

11. Nanda R. Growth changes in skeletal-facial profile and their significance in orthodontic diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1971; 59: 501-513.

12. Chacona J. Ortodoncia. Manual Moderno, 1982.

13. Ricketts R. Técnica bioprogresiva de Ricketts. Panamericana, 1983.

14. Moyers R. Crecimiento maxilofacial. Médica Panamericana, 1982.

15. Bishara J. Changes in the maxillary and mandibular tooth size-arch length relationship from early adolescence to early adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 95: 46-59.

16. Spahl J. Ortopedia maxilofacial. Clínica y Aparatología, Salvat, 1993.

17. Mayoral G. Ficción y realidad en ortodoncia. Amolca, 1997.

18. Sutter RE, Turley PK. Soft tissue evaluation of contemporary caucasian and african american female facial profiles. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 487-495.

19. Girardot A. Comparison of condilar position in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent facial skeletal types. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 240-246.