A dentofacial study of male students at the university of michigan in the physical hardening program

Huber, R.; Reynolds, J.W

doi:10.1016/s0096-6347(46)90185-8

Cited by 36 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of the definition used, the orthodontist's understanding of how untreated Class III whites grow has been limited by the low prevalence of Class III malocclusions and the tendency to treat subjects at a younger age. The prevalence of Class III malocclusion has been reported 2,3 to range between 1.6% and 12.2%. National health surveys 4,5 have shown that 4.9% of white children between 6 and 11 years of age and 6% of youths between 12 and 17 years of age display a bilateral mesiocclusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial growth of Class III subjects six to sixteen years of age

Wolfe¹,

Araújo²,

Behrents³

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To characterize the mixed-longitudinal craniofacial growth of untreated, white, Class III subjects 6 to 16 years of age. Materials and Methods: Serial cephalograms of 19 females and 23 males with Class III malocclusion were evaluated at three time points (6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 years of age). A similar number of Class I controls were randomly selected and matched for age and sex. The cephalograms were traced and digitized, and 20 variables were evaluated. Growth patterns were quantified, and class and sex differences were evaluated using multi-level analyses. Results: In comparison with Class I subjects, Class III subjects had significantly (P # .05) larger mandibular plane angles, gonial angles, mandibular ramus heights, mandibular corpus lengths, and SNB angles, with differences that were maintained between 6 and 16 years of age. Maxillary lengths and ANB angles were significantly smaller and remained smaller in Class III subjects than in Class I subjects. Lower face height, maxillary-mandibular differential, and mandibular body length were also significantly larger and increased significantly more between 6 and 16 years of age in Class III subjects. The WITS appraisal was significantly smaller in Class III subjects and decreased significantly more over time. Most linear measures showed significant sex differences favoring males; the angular measures and anteroposterior (AP) maxillomandibular relationships showed no sex differences. Conclusions: The AP maxillomandibular relationship of Class III subjects worsens over time. AP discrepancies are primarily due to excessive mandibular growth, which produces a protrusive, hyperdivergent phenotype. The AP discrepancies of males are larger than those of females, with differences increasing over time. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:211-216.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial growth of Class III subjects six to sixteen years of age

Wolfe¹,

Araújo²,

Behrents³

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Can be used to calculate amount of nasopharyngeal space, size of adenoids and to know he skeletal patterns of the patient by taking various cephalometric angles. 8,25 TREATMENT OF MOUTH BREATHING…”

Section: Cephalometricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mouth breathing habit: a review

Wasnik¹,

Kulkarni²,

Gahlod³

et al. 2020

Int J Community Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human beings are considered to be nose breathers but various reasons can force them to adapt by breathing through their mouth instead of nose, and this can have extensive consequences. Breathing through both nose and mouth provide lungs with oxygen but with extremely dissimilar effects on the body and with different levels of oxygen supply. Mouth breathing as a habitual respiration through the mouth instead of the nose. Mouth breathing results in a wide spectrum of consequences. These consequences involve different areas of the body which include mouth, craniofacial development, upper and lower airway. Mouth breathing can be considered as the most obvious manifestation of a syndromic pattern. Mouth breathing habit generally have severe effects on the growth of the facial skeleton and also on the occlusion of teeth on account of the displacement of normal lateral, buccal and lingual muscular forces. The pathogenesis of mouth breathing habit is complex and multifactorial. Mouth breathing is best managed by using a multidisciplinary approach where the specialists include pediatrician, physicians, pediatric dentists and ear-nose-throat (ENT) specialists. Since there is a close correlation between oral breathing and dento-facial in harmonies, the pediatrician and pediatric dentist should work together after an early identification of an oral breathing in a child. This review article aims to survey the scientific literature in regarding prevalence, etiology, consequences and treatments for mouth breathing in order to update the healthcare professionals regarding the recognition of this syndrome and sensitize them looking for an early and comprehensive intervention.

show abstract

“…The prevalence of this condition depends on ethnicity and geographic region. In Caucasian populations, the prevalence is relatively low (from 1.9% to 12.2%) . The highest prevalence is recorded in Southeast Asian populations (in China and in Malaysia, the prevalence is between 12.6% and 26.7%) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A multilevel analysis of craniofacial growth in subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion

Rutili

Nieri

Giuntini

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To analyse the craniofacial growth of a long‐term semi‐longitudinal sample of Caucasian subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion. Setting and sample population A total of 144 Caucasian subjects (of North American and Italian origin) with untreated Class III malocclusion. Materials and methods Subjects aged 2 years and 9 months up to 21 years and 7 months were selected. A multilevel model was used to calculate growth curves for ten variables for both each individual subject and for the whole sample. Results There was a statistically significant increase for total mandibular length (Co‐Gn. T2‐T1 = 8.4 mm), midfacial length (Co‐A. T2‐T1 = 3.4 mm) and lower anterior facial height (ANS‐Me. T2‐T1 = 3.8 mm). The multilevel analysis showed two points of acceleration of growth (about 3‐5 years of age and 11‐15 years of age) for seven out of ten variables. For Co‐Gn and Co‐A variables, males presented points of maximum growth delayed by 1 year in comparison with females, with a greater duration (1 year longer) and a greater total growth of about 5 mm. Active mandibular growth continued for a long time after the pubertal spurt: increases in mandibular length ended at about 17 years of age in females and at 21 years and 7 months in males. Conclusions Untreated Class III malocclusion showed a specific growth curve, especially for the mandible, whose excesses added up over time. In males, the amounts of mandibular and midfacial growth during the whole observation time were greater and lasted longer than in females.

show abstract

A dentofacial study of male students at the university of michigan in the physical hardening program

Cited by 36 publications

References 1 publication

Craniofacial growth of Class III subjects six to sixteen years of age

Craniofacial growth of Class III subjects six to sixteen years of age

Mouth breathing habit: a review

A multilevel analysis of craniofacial growth in subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About