Background: Previous studies regarding various types of malocclusions have found correlations between the angle of the base of the skull and prognathism. Aim of the study: This cephalometric study sought to investigate the function of the cranium base angle in different types of malocclusion on a group of Romanian subjects. Materials and methods: Forty-four cephalometric radiographs were selected from patients referred to orthodontic treatment. The cephalometric records were digitized, and with the CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X5 software 22 landmarks have been marked on each radiograph. A number of linear and angular variables were calculated. Results: The angle of the base of the skull was found to be higher in Class II Division 1 subjects compared to the Class I group. The cranial base lengths, N-S and S-Ba, were significantly larger in both categories of Class II malocclusion than in Class I patients, but measurements were comparable in Class I and Class III. The SNA angle showed no considerable variation between Class I subjects and the other groups. SNA-SNP was significantly increased above Class I values in Class II Division1 and Class II Division 2 groups. No significant dissimilarities were observed for these lengths between Class I and Class III patients. Conclusions: The angle of the cranium base (S-N-Ba, S-N-Ar) does not have a major role in the progression of malocclusion. In Angle Class II malocclusion the SNA angle is increased, and SNB is increased in malocclusion Class III. The anterior skull base length is increased in Class II anomalies. The length of the maxillary bone base is increased in Class II malocclusions type; in Class III type of malocclusion the length of the mandible bone is increased.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Jain S, Jain D. Prevalence and distribution of selected developmental dental anomalies in an Indian population. J Oral Sci. 2011;53:231-238.
2. Mack KB, Phillips C, Jain N, Koroluk LD. Relationship between body mass index percentile and skeletal maturation and dental development in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:228-234.
3. Dorobăț V, Stanciu D. Ortodonție și ortopedie dento-facială. București: Editura Medicală, 2009; p. 153-438.
4. Șerbănescu A, Corega C, Corega MA. Teleradiografia în ortodonție. Cluj- Napoca: Editura Medicală Universitară ”Iuliu Hațieganu”, 2008; p. 1-28.
5. Arvidson LZ, Fjeld MG, Smith HJ, Flatø B, Ogaard B, Larheim TA. Craniofacial growth disturbance is related to temporomandibular joint abnormality in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, but normal facial profile was also found at the 27-year follow-up. Scand J Rheumatol. 2010;39:373-379.
6. Laue K, Pogoda HM, Daniel PB, et al. Craniosynostosis and multiple skeletal anomalies in humans and zebrafish result from a defect in the localized degradation of retinoic acid. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;89:595-606.
7. Andria LM, Leite LP, Prevatte TM, King LB. Correlation of the Cranial Base Angle and Its Components with Other Dental/Skeletal Variables and Treatment Time. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:361-366.
8. Bacon W, Eiller V, Hildwein M, Dubois G. The cranial base in subjects with dental and skeletal Class II. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:224-228.
9. Arntsen T, Sonnesen L. Cervical vertebral column morphology related to craniofacial morphology and head posture in pre-orthodontic children with Class II malocclusion and horizontal maxillary overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:e1-e7.
10. Bjork A. Cranial base developement: A follow-up x-ray study of the individual variation in growth occurring between the ages of 12 and 20 years and its relation to brain case and face development. Am J Orthod. 1955;41:198-225.
11. Opitz C. Kieferorthopädische Behandlung von Patienten mit Lippen- Kiefer-Gaumen-Spalten. Berlin: Quintessenz, 2002; p. 13-19.
13. Mizoguchi I, Toriya N, Nakao Y. Growth of the mandible and biological characteristics of the mandibular condylar cartilage. Japanese Dental Science Review. 2013;49:139-150.
14. Avelar RL, Becker OE, Dolzan Ado N, Göelzer JG, Haas OL Jr, de Oliveira RB. Correction of facial asymmetry resulting from hemimandibular hyperplasia: surgical steps to the esthetic result. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:1898-1900.
15. Dhopatkar A, Bhatia S, Rock P. An Investigation Into the Relationship Between the Cranial Base Angle and Malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:456-463.
16. Perillo L, Padricelli G, Isola G, Femiano F, Chiodini P, Matarese G. Class II malocclusion Division 1: a new classification method by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:192-196.
17. El H, Palomo JM. An airway study of different maxillary and mandibular sagittal positions. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:262-270.
18. Bollhalder J, Hänggi MP, Schätzle M, Markic G, Roos M, Peltomäki TA. Dentofacial and upper airway characteristics of mild and severe Class II Division 1 subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:447-453.