De la Rosa CAV, Montiel BNM, Kubodera IT, Jasso RI

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 251-257
PDF size: 497.26 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: In 1960, Robert Ricketts presented a cephalometric analysis consisting of 33 factors through which he attributed numerical values to the rate of change in facial growth, tooth proportionality, the position of the jaw and chin, and facial esthetics. His results were obtained from studies carried out on a Caucasian population whose craniofacial characteristics differ from those of Hispanics and specifically those of the Mexican population. Objective: Based on Ricketts’s proposal, to develop a cephalometric standard for the 15-17 and over-18 age groups of the population of Mexico State. Material and methods: 97 patients made up of teenagers (over 15 years old) and adults of Mexican parents and grandparents were studied, all of whom met the following criteria: good esthetics, facial symmetry, permanent dentition, Angle Class I molar relationship, no dental crowding, no caries, no prior orthodontic or orthopedic treatment, and no prior maxillofacial surgery. The sample is deemed to be representative of the Mexico State population given the difficulty of satisfying these criteria. Lateral cranial X-rays were taken of 49 patients from 15 to 17 years old (17 men, 32 women) and 48 patients over 18 years old (23 men, 25 women) to estimate the corresponding measurements based on Ricketts’s cephalometry (33 measurements). Cephalometric tracing was performed, with measurements being taken by two previously trained individuals, which were then tested in duplicate in order to standardize the measurements. The mean and standard deviation were obtained and the Student’s t-test applied, following which a polygon was constructed from the data obtained. Conclusions: The cephalometric standard constructed for the population of Mexico State presented differences according to sex in the groups studied, supporting the principle that every population displays a distinct pattern of growth and development. The standard will be useful in the orthodontic treatment of the population in question.

REFERENCES

1. Vellini FF. Ortodoncia, diagnóstico y planificación clínica. 2ª ed. Brasil: Artes Médicas Latinoaméricana; 2004: pp. 313, 314, 320-327.

2. Canut BJ. Ortodoncia clínica y terapéutica. 2ª ed. España: Masson; 2001.

3. Broadbent LW. The face of the normal child. Angle Orthod. 1937; 7: 209-233.

4. Silva R, Kaban L. Cephalometric database for mexican adults using COGS analysis, comparison with caucasian norms. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 117-118.

5. Cano C, Rosas C, Gutiérrez N, Velásquez Y, Godoy S, Quiros O et al. Frecuencia de maloclusión en niños de 5 a 9 años en una zona rural del Estado Guárico periodo 2007-2008. Revista Latinoamericana de Ortodoncia y Odontopediatría. Caracas, Venezuela. Edición electrónica junio 2008.

6. Proffit WR. Ortodoncia contemporánea, teoría y práctica. 3ª ed. España: Mosby; 1995.

7. Sobradillo B, Aguirre A, Aresti U et al. Curvas y tablas de crecimiento; Estudios longitudinal y transversal. Instituto de Investigación sobre Crecimiento y Desarrollo. Fundación Faustino Orbegozo Eizaguirre Bilbao, 2002.

8. Witzig JW, Spahl TJ. Ortopedia maxillofacial. Clínica y aparatología. Diagnóstico. Tomo II. España: Masson; 1993.

9. Ricketts R, Bench, Gugino, Hilgers, Schulhof. Técnica Bioprogresiva de Ricketts. 3ª ed. Panamericana; 1999.

10. Zamora CE, Duarte S. Compendio de cefalometría. Análisis clínico práctico. 1ª ed. Colombia. Amolca; 2004.