A family study of craniofacial dimensions in the Burlington Growth Centre sample

Cephalometric craniofacial features in Saudi parents and their offspring

“…7,8,14,23,26,27 The most noticeable feature was stronger correlations and h 2 values between fathers and their offspring than between mothers and their offspring. This feature was consistent with the findings of Hunter 23 and Nakata et al 26 ; however, it did not confirm the results of Saunders et al 12 and Nakisama et al, 27 who found no statistically significant difference in the value of any parents-offspring correlations.…”

“…With regard to facial skeletal structures, mothers were responsible for transmitting these variables to their sons more frequently than to their daughters. Saunders et al 12 utilized lateral cephalograms to study the similarities in craniofacial dimensions between family members from the Burlington Growth Centre sample. They compared parents with offspring, and siblings with siblings.…”

Growth hormone receptor gene variant and three-dimensional mandibular morphology

“…Genetic and environmental factors are involved in craniofacial size and the characteristics of craniofacial morphology 1,2 ; in particular, the results of studies investigating facial similarities between relatives suggest that genetic factors play an important role in determining craniofacial morphology. 3,4 Comparisons between monozygotic and dizygotic twins have revealed even stronger relationships between genetic factors and craniofacial morphology.…”

Genetic Factors Affecting Facial Growth

“…(King et al, 1993) Numerous studies have examined how genetic variation contributes to either or both occlusal and skeletal variation among family members. (Arya et al, 1973;Boraas et al, 1988;Byard et al, 1985;Cassidy et al, 1998;Chung & Niswander, 1975;Corruccini et al, 1986;Devor, 1987;Fernex et al, 1967;Gass et al, 2003;Harris et al, 1973;Harris et al, 1975;Harris & Smith, 1980;Harris & Johnson, 1991;Hauspie et al, 1985;Horowitz et al, 1960;Hunter et al, 1970;Johannsdottir et al, 2005;King et al, 1993;Kraus et al, 1959;Litton et al, 1970;Lobb, 1987;Lundstrom & McWilliam, 1987;Manfredi et al, 1997;Nakata et al, 1973;Nikolova, 1996;Proffit, 1986;Saunders et al, 1980;Susanne & Sharma, 1978;Watnick, 1972) In most studies (particularly those that try to account for bias from the effect of shared environmental factors, unequal means, and unequal variances in monozygotic and dizygotic twin samples), (Harris & Potter, 1997) variations in cephalometric skeletal dimensions are associated in general with a moderate to high degree of genetic variation, whereas in general, variation of occlusal relationships has little or no association with genetic variation. (Harris, 2008) Although the heritability estimates are low, most of the studies that looked at occlusal traits found that genetic variation is positively correlated with phenotypic variation for arch width and arch length more than for overjet, overbite, and molar relationship.…”

“…Examination of parents and older siblings has been suggested as a way to gain information regarding the treatment need for a child, including early treatment of malocclusion. (Harris & Kowalski, 1976;Litton et al, 1970;Niswander, 1975;Saunders et al, 1980) Niswander noted that the frequency of malocclusion is decreased among siblings of index cases with normal occlusion, whereas the siblings of index cases with malocclusion tend to have the same type of malocclusion more often. (Niswander, 1975) There are high correlation coefficient values between parents and their offspring for Class II and Class III malocclusions.…”