ISSN : 0376-4672
This study investigated the positional changes of maxillary and mandibular incisors during growth and the difference of positional changes accord ing to the three superimposition methods. Lateral cephalographs including 10 subjects(7 males and 3 females) between 7-14 years old were used, which had been taken at University of California in San Francisco and kept at University of the Pacific. Four lateral cephalographs were selected based on chronologic age and development of dental occlusion. After tracing of cephalographs, superimposition was performed in three methods; based on cranial base, maxilla or mandible, and implants of maxilla and mandible. The repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and ANOVA with post-hoc analysis were performed. With growth, both maxillary and mandibular incisors showed changes in the anterior and downward directions, and the amount of positional changes was different according to the superimposition methods. As a result of comparing the changes of the upper and lower incisors according to three superimposition methods, the horizontal change of the upper incisor showed statistically significant differences between the three superim position methods in all three periods. The change of the lower incisor showed a statistically significant difference only in the T3-T4 period, and no statistically significant difference in the other periods. In growing children, superimposition based on the facial bone shows that growth of the facial bones including the maxilla and mandible is con tained together. This suggests that growth needs to be considered even when evaluating orthodontic treatment.
1. Carlson H. Studies on the rate and amount of eruption of certain human teeth. Am J Orthodont Oral Surg 1944;30:575-588.
2. Bishara SE. Longitudinal cephalometric standards from 5 years of age to adulthood. Am J Orthod 1981;79(1):35-44.
3. Ellis E 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Cephalometric evaluation of incisor position. Angle Orthod 1986;56(4):324-344.
4. Iseri H and Solow B. Continued eruption of maxillary incisors and first molars in girls from 9 to 25 years, studied by the implant method. Eur J Orthod 1996;18(3):245-256.
5. Hrris EF. A longitudinal study of arch size and form in untreated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(4):419-427.
6. Watanabe E, Demirjian A, Buschang P. Longitudinal post-eruptive mandibular tooth movements of males and females. Eur J Orthod 1999;21(5):459-468.
7. Zang X, Baumrind S, Chen G, Chen H, Liang Y, Xu T.Longitudinal eruptive and posteruptive tooth movements, studied on oblique and lateral cephalograms with implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(5):673-684.
8. Bishara SE, Treder JE, Jakobsen JR. Facial and dental changes in adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106(2):175-186.
9. Bishara SE. Facial and dental changes in adolescents and their clinical implications. Angle Orthod 2000;70(6):471-483.
10. Ceylan I, Baydas B, Bölükbasi B. Longitudinal cephalometric changes in incisor position, overjet, and overbite between 10 and 14 years of age. Angle Orthod 2002;72(3):246-250.
11. AAOF Legacy. American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (AAOF). Craniofacial Research Instrumentation Laboratory (CRIL), Department of Orthodontics, University of the Pacific, http://www.aaoflegacycollection.org/aaof_home.html. 2018.
12. Chun YS, Hwang CJ. Logic for the use of stable structural superimposition method and introduction of its application. Korean J Orthod 1997;27(5):669-864.
13. Björk A. The use of metallic implants in the study of facial growth in children: method and application. Am J Phys Arthropol 1968;29(2):243-254.
14. Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55(6):585-599.
