Mehmet Özveren, Pamir Meriç, Neslihan Özveren, Rüveyde Garip

Farklı İskeletsel Maloklüzyon Tiplerinde Orbit Vektör İlişkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı sefalometrik analizler ile desteklenmiş farklı maloklüzyon tiplerinde orbit vektör ilişkisini tanımlamaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışma ortodontik maloklüzyon tanısı koyulan 69 hasta ile yapıldı. Yaş ve cinsiyet gibi demografik özellikler hasta dosyalarından elde edildi. Anteroposterior iskeletsel ilişkiyi değerlendiren sefalometrik analizler ortodonti uzmanı tarafından yapıldı. Orbit vektör ilişkisi iki farklı oftalmolog tarafından Frankfurt horizontal planında çekilen dijital fotoğraflardan değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama yaş 14,58±3,95 (aralık, 8-28) yıl idi. Hastaların 45’i kadın (%65,2), 24’ü erkekti (%34,8). Pozitif orbit vektöre sahip olgularda SNA ve ANB değerleri negatif orbit vektöre sahip olgulara göre anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu (pSNA=0,014, pANB=0,001). Class I ve Class II maloklüzyon grupları arasında orbit vektör ilişkisi açısından bir fark yoktu (p=0,580). Ancak Class III maloklüzyon grubunda Class I (p=0,039) ve Class II’ye (p=0,004) göre daha yüksek oranlarda negatif orbit vektör saptandı. Sonuç: Class I ve Class II maloklüzyona sahip olguların çoğunluğunda pozitif orbit vektör görülürken Class III maloklüzyona sahip olgularda negatif orbit vektörün daha fazla olduğu görüldü.

Evaluation of Orbit Vector Relationships in Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusions

Objective: This study aimed to determine the orbit vector relationships between different types of malocclusion supported by cephalometric analysis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 69 patients who were diagnosed with orthodontic malocclusion. Demographic information, such as age and gender, were provided from the medical records of the patients. Cephalometric analysis was performed by an expert orthodontist to determine the anteroposterior skeletal relationship. The orbit vector relationship was evaluated by digital patient photographs taken by the Frankfort horizontal plane by two different ophthalmologists. Results: The mean age of the patients was 14.58±3.95 (range, 8-28) years. Forty- five (65.2%) of the patients were female and 24 (34.8%) were male. Positive orbit vector patients had significantly higher SNA measures and ANB readings than negative orbit vector patients (pSNA=0.014, pANB=0.001). There was no difference in orbit vector status between Class I and II malocclusion groups (p=0.580). Negative vectors were more common in the Class III group than in the Class I (p=0.039) and Class II (p=0.004) groups. Conclusion: The majority of patients in the Class I and II groups had a positive orbit vector, whereas patients in the Class III group had a negative orbit vector relationship.

PDF

___

1. Kale B, Buyukcavus MH, Esenlik E. Comparison of the change in inferior sclera exposure after maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Niger J Clin Pract 2018; 21: 854-8.
2. Mommaerts MY. Definitive treatment of the negative vector orbit. J Craniomaxillofacial Surg 2018; 46: 1065-8.
3. Frey ST. New diagnostic tenet of the esthetic midface for clinical assessment of anterior malar projection. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 790-4.
4. Sanadhya S, Chadha M, Chaturvedi MK, Chaudhary M, Lerra S, Meena MK, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment needs among 12–15-year-old schoolchildren of fishermen of Kutch coast, Gujarat, India. Int Marit Health 2014; 65: 106-13.
5. Hassan R, Rahimah AK. Occlusion, malocclusion and method of measurements-an overview. Archives of Orofacial Sciences 2007; 2: 3-9.
6. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1952; 22: 142-5.
7. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. Elsevier-Mosby; 2013.
8. Litt RA, Nielsen IL. Class II, division 2 malocclusion. To extract--or not extract? Angle Orthod 1984; 54: 123-38.
9. Gospe SM 3rd, Bhatti MT. Orbital Anatomy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2018; 58: 5-23.
10. Zide B, Grayson B, McCarthy JG. Cephalometric analysis: part I. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 68: 816-23.
11. Brownlee RE. Anthropometry of the head and neck, 2nd ed. In: Leslie G. Farkas, editors. New York: Raven Press, 1994.
12. Tepper OM, Steinbrech D, Howell MH, Jelks EB, Jelks GW. A retrospective review of patients undergoing lateral canthoplasty techniques to manage existing or potential lower eyelid malposition: identification of seven key preoperative findings. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136: 40-9.
13. Ngan P, Moon W. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148: 22-36.
14. Doddamani GM, Swathi P V, Tan KFH. Assessment of anterior malar projection using visual photographs and lateral cephalograms: A comparative study. J Orthod Sci 2018; 7: 15.
15. Rajabi MT, Gholipour F, Ramezani K, Hosseini SS, Rajabi MB, Tabatabaie SZ. The influence of orbital vector on involutional entropion and ectropion. Orbit 2018; 37: 53-8.
16. Choi SY, Lee H, Baek S. Role of negative orbit vector in orbital blow-out fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28: 1925-8.