The aim of this study was to evaluate nasal parameters in Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion and its association with different growth patterns and gender. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 120 Indian adults were selected from the archives for the study. Various hard-and soft-tissue parameters were traced on cephalogram. SNA, SNB, and ANB were used to distribute records in Class I, II, and III. GO-GN to sella-nasion was used to divide different growth patterns. The nasal parameters used were nasal length (N Lth), nasal depth, nasolabial angle (NLA), and lower nose to Frankfort horizontal (LNFH) plane angle. The group differences were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and independent sample t-test. Results: On the evaluation of nasal parameters in Class I, II, and III malocclusions, N Lth was found to be greater in Class III adult. Similarly, NLA and LNFH angle was significantly higher in adults with vertical growth pattern. However, no statistically significant difference was found between various nasal parameters in male and female adults (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The present study found that among the different malocclusion groups of Class I, II, and III, N Lth was found to be greater in Class III adults. Similarly, comparison of the overall sample for all nasal parameters within different growth pattern showed that NLA and LNFH angle was higher in adults with vertical growth pattern. However, there was no gender dimorphism found for nasal parameters.

No abstract

No abstract

Stage C as given by Angelieri et al., [1] only on assumption without performing and evaluating the results of RME in the samples selected. The main hindrance to RME is by circummaxillary sutures than the MPS. [2] Of all the circummaxillary sutures, pterygomaxillary suture [3] and zygomaticomaxillary suture [4] provide maximum resistance to RME. According to Baccetti et al., [5] pterygomaxillary suture fuses by age 12 years, and according to Angeleiri et al., [4] zygomaticomaxillary suture fuses between 10 and 15 years of age. Although the authors have mentioned that success of RME is influenced by fusion of circummaxillary sutures, their conclusion of justifying RME beyond 15 years based only on the maturation status of MPS, ignoring the maturation of circummaxillary sutures, is doubtful. Furthermore, the authors have recommended the use of CBCT to evaluate the maturation status of MPS, but routinely, CBCT is not indicated for the same. The authors have mentioned that prediction of prognosis of RME based on chronological age is uncertain, correlating MPS maturation with routinely used skeletal maturity indicator is a better option rather than use CBCT to evaluate the same.

No abstract