The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between craniofacial growth and skeletal maturation. The material consisted of the cephalometric and hand-wrist film pairs of 35 males and 43 females (78 subjects) whose development was followed for a period of 4 to 7 years. The subjects were grouped according to their skeletal maturation. Their mean ages were: Group I 10.27, Group II 11.55, and Group III 14.79 years, respectively, at the beginning of the observation period. Intra- and inter-group differences were examined through paired t-tests, and Pearson correlation analysis was used to detect the relationship between craniofacial growth and skeletal maturation (percentage growth potential). The results show that the middle cranial base (T-W) maintained its stability in all pubertal growth periods. However, posterior cranial base length (T-Ba) increases significantly (P < 0.001) throughout the same period. There were similar increases in the vertical dimensions of the face and alveolar height throughout pubertal growth. Despite the intensified increases in both the sagittal and vertical directions, facial characteristics were constant in the sagittal direction. The skeletal development (percentage growth potential) has clearly been effective in the vertical facial development commencing in Group I and reaching its maximum level in Group II. However Cd-Go was the exception.

That smaller airway measurements in only the high-angle Class II subjects were noted confirms an association between pharyngeal airway measurements and a vertical skeletal pattern. However, we could not ascertain that a sagittal jaw relationship had an effect on airway space.

This case report presents the results of functional and myofunctional treatment of a 9-year, 5-month-old male patient with laterognathy, facial asymmetry and dentofacial deformity. The patient had a history of herpes encephalitis at age 8.5 months and palsy on the left side in early childhood, and his left side remained paralyzed as a sequela. The patient had dentoalveolar asymmetry with a Class I right and Class III left canine relation, a 1.5 mm midline deviation, anterior cross-bite, an overjet of -3 mm and an overbite of 3 mm. The dentoalveolar and facial asymmetries were corrected using a modified removable appliance, with an acrylic vestibular shield inserted on the right side to guide the mandible in the upper arch and an acrylic plate with artificial teeth in the lower arch. The patient was instructed to practice myofunctional exercises regularly. In total, treatment, including observation, was completed in a period of 2 years and 10 months, at which time, a marked correction in facial asymmetry and profile and improvement in smile esthetics could be observed. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:341-347)

Background The aim of this study was to determine morphological differences among Class II, division 1 (Class II,1) subjects with different rotation models according to mandibular plane inclination and to compare these with normal subjects.Methods The study consisted of 132 subjects (99 Class II,1 and 33 Class I control group). The Class II,1 group included subjects who had ANB (point A-nasionpoint B) angles greater than 4° with an overjet equal to or greater than 5 mm. Based on the SN/Go-Gn (cranial base anterior length/gonion-gnathion) angle, subjects were divided into three different rotation models as hypodivergent, normodivergent and hyperdivergent. Variance analysis (ANOVA) was used to assess the presence of differences between groups (p < 0.05).Results There was no statistical difference among the three groups in Class II,1 malocclusion according to upper face height (N-ANS), total mandibular size (CdPg) and mandibular corpus size (Go-Gn) (p > 0.05). Although the ramus (Cd-Go) was significantly shorter in the Class II,1 hyperdivergent group (p < 0.05), the hypodivergent group had similar ramus heights compared with controls.Conclusions Class II groups showed a similar increase in the ANB angle in spite of a different vertical rotation type. This study concludes that future Class II studies should divide subjects into subgroups according to hypodivergent, neutral and hyperdivergent phenotypes.

No abstract