PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 29, 2024Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal1 citationsOpen Access

Analysis Between the Thickness of Alveolar Bone and Position of Incisor in Class I and Ii Malocclusions Through Lateral Cephalograms

View Full Paper
SSSadia ShabbirJinnah Medical & Dental CollegeHPHana PervezJinnah Medical & Dental CollegeAWA WASANJinnah Medical & Dental College

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

To assess the inclination of incisors and thickness of alveolar bone in malocclusions of Class I and Class II. A comparative study was conducted on 114 individuals in which incisor inclinations and their relationships with the alveolar bone were assessed by using lateral cephalograms. In the study individuals with Class I malocclusion, with a mean age of 18.6 years were recruited along with the individuals of Class II malocclusions with a mean age of 18.27 years. Almost, 114 lateral cephalograms were taken from the individuals. Out of them, 51 had class II malocclusion and 63 had class I malocclusion. The overall mandibular alveolar thickness showed no statistically significant difference between class I and class II malocclusion (P=.086), while there was a slight but statistically significant variation in the maxillary alveolar thickness (P=0.029). There was no significant distinction in the maxillary incisor inclination between the two groups (P=.603), whereas the root apex location lower labial was considerably more posterior (P <.001). However, it was discovered that Class II malocclusion patients had a substantially higher mandibular incisor inclination (P=.004). In the study, the position of the mandibular incisor root apex varied significantly across classes I and II. The mandibular incisor root apex was therefore more posteriorly positioned in class II relative to the alveolar center.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Shabbir et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e76e68b6db6435876e41e0https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.720
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Peridental bone changes after orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances: A cone-beam computed tomographic study2017 · 58 citations
  2. 2Assessment of Maxillary Incisors' Angulation and Position in Different Types of Malocclusions Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography2021 · 7 citations
  3. 3Accuracy and eligibility of Bonwill⁃Hawley arch form established by CBCT image for dental crowding measurement: a comparative study with the conventional brass wire and caliper methods2023 · 6 citations
  4. 4Contact of the incisive canal and upper central incisors causing root resorption after retraction with orthodontic mini-implants: A CBCT study2018 · 50 citations
  5. 5Factors related to alveolar bone thickness during upper incisor retraction2012 · 85 citations