A comparison of cranial base growth in Class I and Class II skeletal patterns

Citation
Bm. Wilhelm et al., A comparison of cranial base growth in Class I and Class II skeletal patterns, AM J ORTHOD, 119(4), 2001, pp. 401-405
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry/Oral Surgery & Medicine
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS
ISSN journal
08895406 → ACNP
Volume
119
Issue
4
Year of publication
2001
Pages
401 - 405
Database
ISI
SICI code
0889-5406(200104)119:4<401:ACOCBG>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
The purpose of this retrospective longitudinal study was to compare 7 cepha lometric measurements of the cranial base in subjects with Class I and Clas s It skeletal patterns at ages 1 month, 2 years, and 14 years. A sample of 22 Class I and 21 Class II subjects was selected; the inclusion criteria we re overjet, ANB, and Harvold unit difference. Analyses of head circumferenc e, crown-rump length, and weight revealed no significant (P > .15) differen ces between the Class I and Class II infant subjects at the initial age (1 month). One angular and 6 linear measurements were first compared with a mu ltivariate analysis of variance, which revealed significant effects for age (P = .0001) and the age by skeletal pattern interaction (P = .0266) but no t for skeletal pattern (P = .3705). Analyses of variance showed significant (P < .0001) age effects for each of the cephalometric variables but no sig nificant skeletal pattern effects (P > .10). The anterior cranial base meas urement of nasion to sphenoethmoidal suture was the only variable found to have a significant age by skeletal pattern interaction (P < .006), which re vealed a difference in the timing of its growth spurt that occurred between 1 month and 2 years in the Class I subjects and between 2 years and 14 yea rs in the Class II subjects. There were no significant differences between the skeletal classes at any of the 3 ages evaluated. Conclusions from this study indicate that cranial base growth patterns are similar for Class I an d Class ii subjects and that the premise of a more obtuse "saddle angle" or cranial base angle in Class II skeletal patterns was not supported.