Determining Skeletal Parameters in Angle Classes II, Division 1 and II, Division 2*

Lisson, Jörg A.; Pyka, Christian

doi:10.1007/s00056-005-0515-3

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In agreement with previous reports [2,4,39] maxillary length was not significantly different between the groups. Mandibular total and body length increased from group II/1 to group II/2 by about 3 mm on average, while results from literature are conflicting [2,3,40].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Similarly, several previous studies failed to find clear differences in the basal positions between the Angle Class II subdivisions [1,2,4,28]. Some authors, however, reported a more retrognathic mandible [2,3,5,26,33,41,42] and a more obtuse ANB [3,28] in Class II division 1 as compared with division 2. Since ANB is largely affected by jaw prognathism and mandibular rotation, assessment of the anteroposterior basal relationship was additionally based upon Wits appraisal [14,43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…While some studies support the existence of pathognomonic skeletal features in Class II division 2 subjects clearly distinguishable from Class II division 1 morphology [2-4], others failed to ascertain in a larger sample fundamental skeletal differences between the two subdivisions [1]. These inconsistent findings may partly be due to a variable definition of malocclusions and insufficient control of confounding factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mandibular total and body length increased from group II/1 to group II/2 by about 3 mm on average, while results from literature are conflicting [2,3,40]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pancherz et al [1] found no clear-cut skeletal differences besides incisor position between Class II divisions 1 and 2, while other authors have supported the existence of a clearly delimitable Class II division 2 morphology [2-5]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Association of dentoskeletal morphology with incisor inclination in angle class II patients: a retrospective cephalometric study

Kirschneck¹,

Römer²,

Proff³

et al. 2013

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to identify possible dentoskeletal parameters associated with variation of anterior tooth inclination in Angle Class II subdivisions.MethodsPre-treatment lateral radiographs of 144 Class II patients (68 males, 76 females) aged 9 to 17 years were classified for upper incisor inclination into three groups (proclined, normally inclined, retroclined) homogeneous for gender and skeletal jaw relationship. The effect of age on the 22 cephalometric variables was controlled by covariance analysis.ResultsMultivariate analysis of the cephalometric parameters indicated significant inter-group differences. Systematic associations with incisor inclination were revealed using rank correlation: Lower incisor proclination, Wits appraisal and gonial angle significantly decreased (0.04 ≥ p ≥ 0.002), while intercisal angle, mandibular total and corpus length and nasolabial angle increased (0.04 ≥ p ≥ 0.001) with decreasing incisor proclination.ConclusionsClear-cut classification criteria and control of confounding effects may clarify conflicting previous findings on dentoskeletal differences between Class II subdivisions in the mixed dentition. Only minor dentoskeletal differences appear to be associated with incisor inclination. The increased interincisal and nasolabial angle in Class II division 2 subjects are due to reclination of both upper and lower incisors. Jaw positions and chin prominence are not significantly different between the subdivisions. However, Wits appraisal is decreased in Class II division 2. The increased mandibular length observed in Class II division 2 requires further scrutinization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mandibular total and body length increased from group II/1 to group II/2 by about 3 mm on average, while results from literature are conflicting [2,3,40]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%