Gómez GV, Fernández LA, Pérez THE

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 14-20
PDF size: 276.59 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The cephalometric evaluation constitutes an auxiliary method of diagnosis to establish a specific orthodontic treatment plan. Nevertheless, the analyses used as an average of diagnosis have been elaborated in Caucasian and Anglo-Saxon patients, there is not an analysis that represents the own characteristics of our race. The purpose of this study was to know the cephalometric characteristics in the C-I malocclusion compared with norms already established of patients diagnosed as skeletal C-I and molar C-I, who started their treatment in the period 2001-2003 in the DEPeI School of Dentistry, UNAM. Fifty initial craniolateral X-rays were used, carrying out in each one the cephalometric analysis of Jarabak, summarized of Ricketts, stands out bony of Bimbler, the SNA, SNB and ANB of Steiner. The cephalometric measures were organized in four groups of age, then they were analyzed, data were compared with the established norms in each cephalometric analysis. The results indicated that in the 4 groups that the upper goniac angle was diminished and the angle PL occlusal/GoGn and the AFA wew increased. In groups 2, 3 and 4 the mandibular arch and the maxillary height were increased. Besides, 5 cephalometric measures presented a statistically significant difference between the four groups of age. It was concluded that the patients treated in the DEPeI have a dolichofacial pattern with the upper third of the face bigger than the lower third, convex profile and a prominent dentoalveolar zone.

REFERENCES

1. Di Santi MJ. Ortodoncista. Profesora asistente de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Central de Venezuela. Revista Latinoamericana de Ortodoncia y Odontopediatría. Caracas Venezuela, 3 de Septiembre de 2004.

2. Angle EH. Treatment of the malocclusion of the teeth. Philadelphia: SS White Manufacturing; 1907.

3. Canut JA. Ortodoncia clínica. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Masson-Salvat Odontología; 1992.

4. Proffit W, Ackerman J. Rating the characteristics of malocclusion a systematic approach for planning treatment. Am J Orthod 1973; 64: 238.

5. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 296-309.

6. Graber T, Swain B. Ortodoncia. Principios generales y técnicas. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires. Editorial Médica Panamericana; 1992.

7. Strang R, Thompson W. A textbook of orthodontia. Philadelphia: Lea y Febiger; 1958.

8. Houston WJB, Tulley WJ. Manual de ortodoncia. El Manual Moderno, S.A. de C.V. México, D.F.

9. Guardo AJ. Ortodoncia. Editorial Mundi. S.A.I.C.YF. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1981.

10. Gregoret J. Ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática diagnóstico y planificación. Publicaciones Médicas. Barcelona, 2000.

11. Ricketts RM. Técnica bioprogresiva de Ricketts. Buenos Aires. Editorial Médica Panamericana. 1983.

12. Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Massersmith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-American. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 146-55.

13. Oktay H. A comparison of ANB, Wits, AF-BF, and APDI measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 99: 122-8.

14. Freeman RS. Adjusting ANB Angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 162-7.

15. Bishara SE, Fernández AG. Cephalometric comparisons of the dentofacial relationships of two adolescent populations from Iowa and Northern México. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 314-22.