Search

To compare craniofacial and cervical morphology between skeletal Classes II and III applying Geometric Morphometric Methods (GMM). Twenty-six cervical and craniofacial landmarks of 40 Class II and 39 Class III individuals were digitalized on lateral cephalograms. Procrustes ANOVA, generalized Procrustes, principal component analyses, and thin-plate spline function were applied to assess the pattern of shape variation of craniofacial structure and the cervical spine in relation to skeletal classes. Compared with Class III, Class II individuals presented a maxillary protrusion, mandibular retrusion, shorter mandibular corpus, posterior mandibular ramus rotation, anterior cranial base rotation, and a smaller centroid size. Furthermore, a forward and smaller cervical spine were observed. With GMM, the shape and size differences between skeletal classes can be analyzed visually and numerically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the relationships between craniocervical posture and skeletal Class in cephalometric radiographs of adult subjects.Methods: Sixty-five cephalometric radiographs were classified after Delaire, as skeletal Class II and III. The craniocervical posture was evaluated using the variables proposed by Solow (1976) and Rocabado (1983). In order to test the null hypothesis (absence of an association between craniocervical posture and skeletal Class), uni- and multivariate statistical protocols were carried out.Results: Skeletal Class II presented a more posterior rotation of the ramus in relation to the cranium and a more extended head than skeletal Class III. Additionally, significant correlations were observed in Class II individuals between the rotation of mandibular ramus and cervical lordosis, as well as between rotation of mandibular ramus and craniocervical posture.Discussion: The findings of this research may help to understand the contradictory results described in clinical literature about the effect of skeletal class on craniocervical posture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]