EVALUATING DIFFERENT CEPHALOMETRIC FACIAL PLANESWITH INTERCANINE WIDTH IN ORTHODONTIC PATIENTS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Background: Intercanine width plays a crucial role in determining dental arch form, occlusal stability, and facial esthetics in orthodontic patients. Cephalometric facial planes, including the Frankfort horizontal, palatal, and mandibular planes, are commonly used to analyze craniofacial morphology; however, their correlation with intercanine width has not been fully established.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 orthodontic patients aged 14–25 years. Lateral cephalograms were used to measure Frankfort horizontal plane (FHP), palatal plane (PP), and mandibular plane (MP) angles relative to a reference cranial base line. Intercanine width (ICW) was measured on dental casts using a digital caliper. Patients were divided into three skeletal pattern groups based on mandibular plane angle: low-angle (<28°), average-angle (28–36°), and high-angle (>36°). Pearson correlation, ANOVA, and linear regression were applied.
Results: The mean intercanine width was 26.7 ± 2.1 mm. High-angle cases had significantly lower ICW (25.2 ± 1.8 mm) compared to low-angle (27.8 ± 1.7 mm) and average-angle (26.9 ± 1.9 mm) groups (p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was observed between mandibular plane angle and ICW (r = –0.58, p < 0.001). FHP and PP showed weaker correlations (r = –0.21 and –0.27, respectively; p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Mandibular plane angle demonstrated a significant inverse relationship with intercanine width, suggesting its clinical relevance in diagnosis and arch form planning in orthodontics. Other cephalometric planes had a limited predictive value.
References
2. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic Cephalometry. 2nd ed. Quintessence Publishing; 2006.
3. Kumar S, Sharmila R. Correlation between mandibular plane angle and arch width. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2018;52(1):22-6. doi:10.4103/jios.jios_34_17
4. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Sari Z. Dental arch width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(1):71–78. PMID: 11843273
5. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(4):628–633. PMID: 16808575
6. Riolo ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS. An atlas of craniofacial growth. Monograph 2. Craniofacial Growth Series. University of Michigan; 1974.
7. Araujo EA, Buschang PH. Adaptive capacity of the midface and its relevance to orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(5):933-939. doi:10.2319/102010-615.1
8. Ceylan I, Oktay H. A study on the facial proportions and relationship between the dental and skeletal structures in skeletal Class III cases. Eur J Orthod. 1995;17(5):395–402. PMID: 8536404
9. Proffit WR. Equilibrium theory revisited: factors influencing position of the teeth. Angle Orthod. 1978;48(3):175–186. PMID: 279064
10. Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod. 1960;46:330–357.
11. Singh G, McNamara JA Jr. Cephalometric and arch width changes following cervical headgear and rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(3):217–230. PMID: 10928481
12. Bhowmik S, Hazarey PV, Shrivastav SS. Transverse arch dimension changes with passive self-ligating bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(3):306–308. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.025
13. Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA, Memili B. Dental arch width and its correlation with cephalometric parameters. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(6):601–608. PMID: 16373440
14. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Arch form in orthodontics: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(5):624–633. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.004
15. Ibrahim S, El-Bialy T. Comparison of arch forms between different vertical skeletal patterns. J Orthod Sci. 2016;5(2):61–65. doi:10.4103/2278-0203.186172
16. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of 3D CBCT cephalometric analysis using landmarks generated by automated image processing. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(4):194–202. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01525.x
17. Park JH, Yu HS, Kim KD, Lee KJ, Baik HS. A proposal for a new analysis of transverse dental arch relationships using 3D images. Korean J Orthod. 2011;41(3):191–200. doi:10.4041/kjod.2011.41.3.191.
18. Mishra BP, Harish A, Mathew AM, Pradhan A, Sneha S, Murty V, Makkad RS. Management of zygomatic fractures using different surgical approaches. Bioinformation. 2023; 31;19(13):1371-1376. doi: 10.6026/973206300191371.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Utkarsh Singh
Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics,
New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Dr. Vertika Gupta
MDS Pedodontics, Senior Dental Surgeon Community Health Centre, Kasmanda , Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.