Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Bhandari, S. K.
- Alveolar Cortical Bone Density among Different Facial Types: A CBCT Study
Abstract Views :270 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, India, IN
1 Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Dental Surgery and OHS, AFMC Wanowrie, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, India, IN
Source
Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), Vol 34, No 2 (2020), Pagination: 40-45Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the cortical bone density amongst skeletally Class I individuals with different facial forms using Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted using pre-treatment CBCT records of 45 patients, 15 each of hyperdivergent, normodivergent and hypodivergent facial pattern categories selected from the institutional archives. Median bone density was assessed in anterior and posterior sites of maxilla and mandible, followed by comparison of data between hypodivergent, normodiveregent and hyperdivergent subjects. The inter-group statistical comparison of continuous variables was done using Kruskal-Wallis H test. Intra-group statistical comparison of continuous variables was done using Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Median anterior bone density in maxilla and mandible were relatively similar across the 03 facial patterns (P>0.05). However, buccal cortical bone density was increased in normodivergent and hypodivergent subjects compared to hyperdivergent subjects, which was statistically significant (P<0.05). It was also noticed in this study that the density of left buccal region was higher when compared to right which was statistically significant (P<0.05), across 3 facial patterns. Conclusion: This study concludes that hyperdivergent subjects have relatively less dense bones in both maxilla and mandible as compared to other facial patterns. Clinically, it is advised to place wider diameter and increased length TADs in these subjects for better initial and long term stability. However, long term prospective studies with a larger sample size are required to validate the findings of these studies.Keywords
Cortical bone density, Facial pattern, TAD.
References
- Horner KA, Behrents RG, Kim KB, Buschang PH. Cortical bone and ridge thickness of hyperdivergent and hypodivergent adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142: 17–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.021
- Sassouni V. Diagnosis and treatment planning via roentgenographic cephalometry. Am J Orthod. 1958; 44: 433. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(58)90003-4
- Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964; 34(12): 75–93.
- Masumoto T, Hayashi I, Kawamura A, Tanaka K, Kasai K. Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible.Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.1.15
- Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 557–562.
- Park S, Lee YJ, Jeong SH, Kwon TG. Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.044
- Fuh LJ, Huang HL,Chen CS, Fu KL, Shen YW, Tu MG, Shen WC, Hsu JT. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. J Oral Rehab 2010; 37: 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652842.2010.02061.x
- Choi JH, Park CH, Yi SW, Lim HJ, Hwang HS. Bone density measurement in interdental areas with simulate placement of orthodontic miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.019
- Fayeda MMS, Pazerab P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 939– 951. https://doi.org/10.2319/121009-709.1
- Baumgaertel S, Hans B. Buccal cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136: 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.045
- Marquezan M, Lau TCL, Mattos CT, Cunha AD, Nojima LI, Santanna EF, Gomes de Souza MM, Arau MT. Bone mineral density, Methods of measurement and its influence on primary stability of miniscrews. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 62–66. https://doi.org/10.2319/031811-192.1
- Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T, Takano-Yamamoto T. Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 373– 378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00565-1
- Fritz U, Diedrich P, Kinzinger G, Al-said M. The anchorage quality of mini implants towards translatory and extrusive forces. J Orthofac Orthoped. 2003; 64: 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-003-0304-9
- Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Cakan GD. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44(1): 36–43. https:// doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36
- Raadsheer MC, Kiliaridis S, Van Eijden TM, Van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol 1996; 41: 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/00039969(95)00136-0
- Ingervall B, Helkimo E. Masticatory muscle force and facial morphology in man. Arch Oral Biol 1978; 23: 20–206.https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(78)90217-0
- Kiliaridis S. Masticatory muscle influence on craniofacial growth. Acta Odont Scand. 1995; 53: 196–202. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359509005972
- Lione R, Franchi L, Noviello A, Fanucci E, Cozza P. ThreeDimensional Evaluation of Masseter Muscle in Different Vertical Facial Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Study in Growing Children. Ultrason Imaging. 2013; 35: 37. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0161734613502468
- Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x
- Orenstein IH, Synan WJ, Truhlar RS, Morris HF, Ochi S. Bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants: Implant Dent. 1994; 3: 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199405000-00004
- Relating Facial Asymmetry with Mandibular Morphometric Parameters: A CBCT Study
Abstract Views :157 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofcial Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofcial Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune – 411040, Maharashtra, IN
Source
Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), Vol 34, No 4 (2020), Pagination: 131-137Abstract
Introduction: It is imperative to have a sound knowledge of causes and various aspects of facial asymmetry. Objectives: To evaluate asymmetry in the lower third of face, correlate the asymmetry with morphological features of the mandible, to correlate the dental and skeletal asymmetry in the mandible and to determine a correlation between these parameters and skeletal asymmetry at point menton using CBCT. Methods: Pre-treatment records of 15 patients (07 males and 08 females, aged 16.93 ± 2.19 years) with asymmetry of lower third of face due to unknown aetiology and chin deviated to right (Group A, study group) were compared with 15 patients (07 males and 08 females, aged 16.12 ± 2.06 years) presenting with no gross facial asymmetry (Group B, control group). Multiplanar Reformation view of CBCT data in sagittal plane was used to assess condylar height, ramus length and mandibular body length in both groups. Results: The mean condylar heights on both sides were similar in Group B (P-value > 0.05). The condylar height on right side in Group A was smaller compared to the left side condyles in both groups (P-value < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in mean ramus and body length between the 02 groups (P-value > 0.05). The skeletal midline deviation was higher compared to the dental midline deviation towards right in Group A (P-value < 0.001). Conclusion: Condylar height is an important factor responsible for asymmetry of the lower third of the face and deviation of chin in adolescent patients with asymmetry of unknown aetiology.
Keywords
CBCT, Condylar Height, Facial AsymmetryReferences
- Lindauer SJ. Asymmetries: Diagnosis and treatment (editorial). Semin Orthod. 1998; 4(3):133–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(98)80013-3
- Cheong YW, Lo LJ. Facial asymmetry: Etiology, evaluation and management. Chang Gung Med J. 2011; 34:341–51.
- Severt TR, Proft WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1997; 12:171–6.
- Hwang HS, Yuan D, Jeong KH, Uhm GS, Cho JH, Yoon SJ. Three dimensional soft tissue analysis for the evaluation of facial asymmetry in normal occlusion individuals. Korean J Orthod. 2012; 42:56–63. PMid: 23112933 PMCid: PMC3481973. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2012.42.2.56
- Kim JY, Kim BJ, Park KH, Huh JK. Comparison of volume and position of the temporomandibular joint structures in patients with mandibular asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016; 122:772–80. PMid: 27727116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.08.017
- Oh MH, Kang SJ, Cho JH. Comparison of the three-dimensional structures of mandibular condyles between adults with and without facial asymmetry: A retrospective study. Korean J Orthod .2018; 48:73–80. PMid: 29564216 PMCid: PMC5854884. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.2.73
- Kjellberg H, Ekestubbe A, Kiliaridis S, Thilander B. Condylar height on panoramic radiographs. A methodologic study with a clinical application. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994; 52:43–50. PMid: 8184679. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359409096375
- Farkas LG, Cheung G. Facial asymmetry in healthy North American Caucasians. An anthropometrical study. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51:70–7.
- Vig PS, Hewitt AB. Asymmetry of the human facial skeleton. Angle Orthod 1975; 45:125–9.
- Lee GH, Cho HK, Hwang HS, Kim JC. Studies of relationship between P-A cephalometric meaurements and vidual facial asymmetry. Korean J Phys Anthropol 1998; 11:41–8. https://doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.1998.11.1.41
- Ahn JS, Hwang HS. Relationship between perception of facial asymmetry and posteroanterior cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod 2001; 31:489–98.
- Kim HO, Lee W, Kook YA, Kim Y. Comparison of the condyle-fossa relationship between skeletal class III malocclusion patients with and without asymmetry: A retrospective three-dimensional cone beam computed tomograpy study. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43:209–17. PMid: 24228235 PMCid: PMC3822060. https://doi.org/10.4041/ kjod.2013.43.5.209
- Haraguchi S, Iguchi Y, Takada K. Asymmetry of the face in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:421–6. PMid: 18416611. https://doi.org/10.2319/022107-85.1
- Assessment of Nasal Tip Projection and Rotation in Different Types of Malocclusions in Maharashtrian Population: A Photographic Study
Abstract Views :196 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
2 Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
4 Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
1 Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
2 Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
4 Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, IN
Source
Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), Vol 35, No 2 (2021), Pagination: 37-42Abstract
Introduction: Nose holds an anatomically strategic position on face which influences the facial aesthetics and soft tissue profile of an individual, making it indispensable to understand the variations in nasal features and influence of different factors on it. Present study aims at assessing nasal tip projection and nasal tip rotation among patients with different sagittal skeletal relations and vertical facial patterns in Maharashtrian population using photographic analysis. Materials and Methods: Records of 410 patients with age ranging from 17 to 25 yrs were selected from the institutional archives; to assess the nasal projection and rotation. Data obtained was divided into groups depending on the type of sagittal skeletal relation and vertical facial pattern and subjected to the statistical analyses. Results: Nasal tip projection was greater among patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion (mean 0.39) as compared to other malocclusion types, but did not differ significantly (P-value>0.05). Nasal tip rotation was clockwise among patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion and anticlockwise in Class I and Class II malocclusion patients, which was statistically significant (P-value<0.05). Amongst the patients with different vertical facial pattern, no statistically significant result could be obtained for nasal tip projection and rotation. Conclusion: The result of the present study gives an insight about the nasal features prevalent among different types of malocclusion, thus assisting the clinician in treatment planning and achieving good facial aesthetics with pleasing soft tissue profileKeywords
Malocclusion, Nasal Tip Projection, Nasal Tip Rotation.References
- William RP, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2015. P. 5.
- Naini FB. Facial aesthetics concept and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK. 2011. p. 214-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786567
- Vegter F, Hage JJ. Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 106:1090-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-20001000000021
- Kanan UG, Achleshwar G, Apurva D. Morphometric variation in nose types of Gujarati population. Asian J Med Res. 2012; 1:118-20.
- Rajlakshmi CH, Singh MS, Devi HB. Singh CL. Cephalic index of foetues of Manipuri population- A baseline study. J Anat Soc India. 2001; 50:8-10.
- Franciscus RG, Long JC. Variation in human nasal height and breadth. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1991; 85:419-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330850406
- Hall RL, Hall DA. Geographic variation of native people along the Pacific Coast. Hum Biol. 1995; 67:407-26.
- Roelofse MM, Steyn M, Becker PJ. Photo identification: Facial metrical and morphological features in South African males. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 177:168-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.12.003
- Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: Treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67:327-36.
- Nehra K, Sharma V. Nasal morphology as an indicator of vertical maxillary skeletal pattern. J Orthod. 2009; 36:160-6. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653120723148
- Ideal Photographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Available from: https://www.americanboardorthod.com
- Fitzgerald JP, Nanda RS, Currier GF. An evaluation of the nasolabial angle and the relative inclination of the nose and upper lip. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1992; 102:328-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70048-F
- Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod. 1959; 45:481-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(59)90014-4
- Behrents R. JCO/interviews Dr. Rolf Behrents on adult craniofacial growth. J Clin Orthod. 1986; 20:842-7.
- Chaconas SJ. A statistical evaluation of nasal growth. Am J Orthod. 1969; 56:403-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(69)80007-2
- Khare V, Niwlikar KB. Effect of vertical maxillary skeletal pattern on nasal morphology in high and low angle cases. Int J Oral Health Med Res. 2017; 3:75-9.