Curioca RSA, Portillo GG

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 8-13
PDF size: 257.86 Kb.

ABSTRACT

To establish a treatment plan, it is very important to know the facial somatotype. The facial somatotype can be determined clinically and radiographically, classifying it into three patterns: dolichofacial, mesofacial and brachiofacial. When the somatotype is identified accurately it is important to know if some anomalies can be set in the same facial type, to know if the malocclusions are associated with the somatotype and to offer the appropriate treatment. Objective: To determine if there are differences between radiographical diagnosis (frontal plane) and clinical diagnosis (sagital plane). Methodology: 89 children from 6 to 10 years, both genders, who were treated in the Clinic of Pediatric Dentistry of Postgraduate School, UNAM during 2004-2005 were included in the study. Five children were examined per day to make the clinic and radiographic somatotype diagnosis, until the sample was complete. Data were registered and analyzed with the SPSS 12.0 statistical program; Kappa test was used to measure the reliability of both diagnoses. Results: In the comparisons of the mean value for gender there are not significant differences (p = 0.82). The repeatability of both methods is low (Kappa = 0.192). The χ² test indicates that there is association between gender and somatotype (χ² = 8.4; p = 0.015) in the distribution of somatotypes per clinical diagnosis per gender. However, in the distribution of somatotypes per radiographic diagnosis per gender the test indicates that there is not any association between gender and somatotype (χ² = 0.2; p = 0.902). Conclusions: There is not any correlation between both diagnoses due to that the repeatability between them is low. It is considered that the clinical determination of the facial somatotype is another element considered for the diagnosis.

REFERENCES

1. Gregoret J. Ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática. Espaxs, 1997.

2. Ohanian M. Fundamentos y principios de ortopedia dentomaxilo-facial. AMOLCA, 2000.

3. Moore AW. Observations on facial growth and its clinical significance. Am J Orthod 1959: 45: 399-423.

4. Nanda RS. Growth changes in skeletal-facial profile and their significance in orthodontic diagnosis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1971; 59: 501-513.

5. Chaconas JS. Ortodoncia. Manual Moderno, 1982.

6. Ricketts R. Técnica bioprogresiva de Ricketts. Médica Panamericana, 1983.

7. Moyers RE. Crecimiento maxilofacial. Médica Panamericana, 1992.

8. Bishara SJ. The 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.

9. Singh RN. Changes in the soft tissue chin after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98: 41-46.

10. Klapper L, Navarro SF, Bowman D, Pawlowski B. The influence of extraction and non extraction orthodontic treatment on brachyfacial and dolichofacial growht patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofac Ortoph 1992; 101: 425-429.

11. Spahl TJ, Wtzig JW. Ortopedia maxilofacial clínica y aparatología. Salvat, 1993.

12. Mayoral G. Ficción y realidad en ortodoncia. AMOLCA, 1997.

13. Sutter RE, Turley PK. Soft tissue evaluation of contemporary caucasian and African-american female facial profiles. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 487-496.

14. Girardot AR. Comparison of condilar position in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent facial skeletal type. Angle Orthod 2001; 71 (4): 240-246.

15. Clifford R, Hanson PR, Pincsak JJ. Mandibular intercanine width increase without intervention in children with slipped contacts. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23: 469-474.

16. Zamora MOC, Duarte IS. Atlas de cefalometría, análisis clínico y práctico. AMOLCA, 2003.