The Crown to Root Angle of Maxillary Central Incisors in Different Incisal Classes

1983 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Williams ◽  
C. Woodhouse
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Maxillary Central Incisor ◽  
Root Angle ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

The angulation of the maxillary central incisor crown to its root has been measured in 191 patients representing the four classes of incisor malocclusion. Significant differences were only found between Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 groups.

scholarly journals Comparative tomographic study of the maxillary central incisor collum angle between Class I, Class II, division 1 and 2 patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
MuriloFernando Neuppmann Feres ◽  
BiancaSantana Rozolen ◽  
Adel Alhadlaq ◽  
ThamerA Alkhadra ◽  
Tarek El-Bialy
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Maxillary Central Incisor ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Collum Angle ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

scholarly journals COLLUM’S ANGLE AND CROWN ROOT ANGLE OF MAXILLARY INCISORS IN DIFFERENT MALOCCLUSIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 238-42
Author(s):  
Saadia Panezai ◽  
Nasrullah Mengal ◽  
Sadia Nisar Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
T Test ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Root Angle ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Collum Angle ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

Objective: To determine Collum angle and crown to root angle of maxillary central incisor in different skeletalmalocclusion. Study Design: Comparative cross sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Orthondontics department, Bolan Medical College, Civil Sandman Hospital,Quetta, from Jun to Dec 2018. Methodology: Data sample consisted of 140 lateral cephalograms. Sample consisted of 74 female cephalograms and 66 male cephalograms. The mean age of sampled subjects ranged between 21.62 ± 5.96 years. The Colum angle of the maxillary central incisors in each group was measured. SPSS version 21 was used to enter and process data. Comparison between Class II division 1 and division 2 collum angles was made by applying student t-test. Results: The average value for Collum angle in class II division 1 sample was 4.38 ± 3.08 with minimum being 0and maximum 15 degree. The average values for Class II division 2 was 10.52 ± 4.37 with minimum 30 and amaximum 23 degree. Conclusion: Maxillary central incisors in all malocclusions had significantly different mean Collum angles fromzero. Paired sample t-test comparison showed that the Collum angle for maxillary central was much higher inClass II division 2.

scholarly journals Comparison of Collum Angle of Maxillary Central Incisor in High Angle and Low Angle Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
Erum Behroz ◽  
◽  
Hafiz Zuhair Ahmed ◽  
S.M. Tariq Rafi ◽  
Tabassum Ahsan Qadeer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Pattern ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
High Angle ◽  
Maxillary Central Incisor ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Collum Angle ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the mean collum angle of maxillary central incisor and to compare it between high angle and low angle patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 61 class II division 1 patients (comprised 32 males, 29 females, age range 13 to 30 years) from the record files of patients inducted for Orthodontic management from June 2020 till August 2020 at the Department of Orthodontics, Sindh Institute of Oral Health Science, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan. The sample was divided on the basis of Vertical Analysis (angulation of mandibular plane) into high and low angle cases. Collum angle was measured using the angulation of the Maxillary Central Incisor (MCI). Student t-test was used to compare the mean difference of the collum angle between skeletal vertical malocclusions. RESULTS: Mean value of the collum angle for high angle (Vertical Growth pattern) cases were mean ± standard deviation (4.35°±1.49°) while for low angle groups (Horizontal Growth pattern) were (2.41°±1.60°). CONCLUSION: There Collum angle of permanent maxillary central incisors differ significantly (p<0.001) among high angle and Low angle malocclusions cases (n=61) and showed pronounced axial bending in Class II division 1 incisors with high angle (4.35° ± 1.49°) as compared to low angle malocclusion (2.41° ± 1.60°). KEYWORDS: Collum Angle, Maxillary Central Incisor, Orthodontic Treatment, High Angle, Low Angle.

Comparative Dentoskeletal Study of Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 Malocclusion Subjects

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Jyoti Dhakal
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Basic Difference ◽  
Cephalometric Radiograph ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Dentoskeletal Morphology ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Dental Cast ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

The dentoskeletal characteristics of Class II malocclusion subjects were evaluated using cephalometric radiograph and dental cast of 60 untreated patients. The sample included 30 Class II Division 1 and 30 Class II Division 2 malocclusion patients. The inter-canine, inter-premolar, inter-molar, inter-canine alveolar, inter-premolar alveolar, inter-molar alveolar widths are measured on study models. The result showed statistically significant difference between the groups for mandibular inter-canine width only. The cephalometric analysis revealed that SNB angle was responsible for the skeletal sagittal difference between the two groups except for the position of maxillary incisors. No basic difference in dentoskeletal morphology existed between Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 malocclusions.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Adenoids, Upper Airway, and Tongue Using “Predictors of Difficult Airways” in Class II Division 1 and Division 2 Cases with Class I Cases: Prospective In Vivo Observational Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422096341
Author(s):  
Smita Mangesh Choudhari ◽  
Sunita Shrivastav
Keyword(s):  
Significant Positive Correlation ◽  
Upper Airway ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Difficult Airways ◽  
Mandibular Protrusion ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

Introduction: Altered nasorespiratory function leads to altered craniofacial growth. Thus, airway evaluation is important for preventive, interceptive, and corrective orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare adenoids, the upper airway, the tongue, and mandibular dimensions using “predictors of difficult airways” in class II division 1 and class II division 2 cases with class I cases. Method: Sixty subjects of age 15 to 18 years were divided into 3 groups (group 1: class I cases; group 2: class II division 1 cases; and group 3: class II division 2 cases) based on cephalometric parameters, with 20 cases in each group. Cephalometric evaluation of adenoids and the nasopharyngeal airway was done using the Handelman–Osborne area method. Upper and lower airway evaluation was done using McNamara’s linear method. “Predictors of difficult airways” were used for evaluation of the airway, which included nasal competency, the Mallampati scale, mandibular length, mandibular protrusion, and the thyromental distance. Results: The present study found a significant positive correlation between the grades of nasal competency and percentage adenoid wall area, and a significant negative correlation between the grades of nasal competency and the upper airway. There was a significant positive correlation between the grades of nasal competency and mandibular length, and a significant positive correlation between the grades of mandibular protrusion and mandibular length. There was a significant positive correlation between the grades of the thyromental distance and mandibular length. Conclusion: It was concluded that the “predictors of difficult airways” would be helpful in early diagnosis and identification of potential risk factors that may cause “breathing disorders”–related malocclusions and later on increase the risk of developing OSA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document