Longitudinal Quantitation of Tooth Displacement in Chinese Adolescents with Normal Occlusion

Abstract

This longitudinal study aims to analyze the different modes of the maxillary and mandibular tooth displacement in subjects, who were aged 12.5–17.5 years (150–210 months), with untreated normal (Class I) occlusion. Longitudinal lateral cephalograms for a set of 10 subjects (7 females and 3 males) at consecutive annual time points were selected and monitored. Data were analyzed on the basis of the superimpositions of serial tracings of lateral cephalograms on stable anterior cranial base, the anatomies of the maxillary and mandibular structures. The horizontal and vertical displacements of the first molar and incisor were assessed by t-test. The local and the secondary tooth displacements with growth contributed to the total horizontal and vertical displacements of the molars and incisors of the subjects. In the total tooth displacement, the horizontal growth of maxilla and mandible had the same contribution as the local tooth displacements. The vertical maxillary growth played a smaller role than the local drift, and mandibular remodeling went in a reverse direction with the local tooth drift. The first molars moved more forward than the incisors in the upper and lower arches. Both the upper and lower first molars showed forward tipping. The analysis of tooth displacement may be utilized in making orthodontic treatment plan, including anchorage or torque control.

Keywords

tooth movement / growth evaluation / cephalometrics / superimposition

References

[1] ZhangXY, BaumrindS, ChenG, et al.. Longitu-dinal eruptive and posteruptive tooth movements, studied on oblique and lateral cephalograms with implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2018, 153(5): 673-684

[2] ProffitWR, FieldsHW. Contemporary orthodontics, 20074th editionSt Louis, Mosby

[3] BjorkA, SkiellerV. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1972, 62(4): 339-383

[4] BjorkA. The use of metallic implants in the study of facial growth in children: method and application. Am J Phys Anthropol, 1968, 29(2): 243-254

[5] BjorkA, SkiellerV. Roentgencephalometric growth analysis of the mandible. Trans of the Eur Orthod Soc, 1977, 53: 51-55

[6] LysleJ. Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: An integrated analysis of change. British prthodontic society, 1996, 23(2): 93-102

[7] BaumrindS, BenBassatY, BravoLA, et al.. Partitioning the components of maxillary tooth displacement by the comparison of data from three cephalometric superimpositions. Angle Orthod, 1996, 66(2): 111-124

[8] BaumrindS, BravoLA, BenBassatY, et al.. Lower molar and incisor displacement associated with mandibular remodeling. Angle Orthod, 1997, 67(2): 93-102

[9] BaumrindS, KornEL, BenBassatY, et al.. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling 1. A description of osseous changes relative to superimposition on metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1987, 91(1): 29-41

[10] BaumrindS, KornEL, Ben-BassatY, et al.. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling 2. Masking of remodeling effects when an “anatomical” method of superimposition is used in the absence of metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1987, 91(6): 463-474

[11] SteinerC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod, 1959, 29: 8-29

[12] SteuerI. The cranial base for superimposition of lateral cephalometric radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1972, 61(5): 493-500

[13] AratZM, RübendüzM, AkgülAA. The displacement of craniofacial reference landmarks during Puberty: A comparison of three superimposition methods. Angle Orthod, 2003, 73(4): 374-380

[14] Ricketts RM. In: Ricketts RM, eds. Provocations and Perceptions in Craniofacial Orthopedics. San Diego: Jostens, 1989:817–818.

[15] BjorkA. Cranial base development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1955, 41: 198-255

[16] BaumrindS, FrantzRC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1971, 60(2): 111-127

[17] GuY, McNamaraJAJr. Cephalometric Superimpositions. Angle Orthod, 2008, 78(6): 967-976

[18] McNamaraJA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1984, 86(6): 449-469

[19] DibbetsJM. A method for structural mandibular superimpositioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1990, 97(1): 66-73

[20] NielsenIL. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1989, 95(5): 422-431

[21] McNamaraJA. Influence of respiratory pattern on craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod, 1981, 51(4): 269-300

[22] ZuleyhaA, HakanT, JerylDE, et al.. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. Angle Orthod, 2010, 80(4): 725-732

[23] Proffit WR, Fields HW. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW, eds. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby, 2007:117–119.

[24] GuY, McNamaraJA. Mandibular growth changes and cervical vertebral maturation. Angle Orthod, 2007, 77(6): 947-953

[25] MauryM, SchourI. Studies in tooth development: Theories of eruption. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortho, 1941, 27(10): 552-576

[26] WangMK, BuschangP, BehrentsR. Mandibular rotation and remodeling changes during early childhood. Angle Orthod, 2009, 79(2): 271-275

[27] RobertR. A review of the significant findings in growth and development since the advent of cephalometrics. Angle Orthod, 1956, 26(3): 155-165

[28] GomesAS, LimaEM. Mandibular growth during adolescence. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76: 786-790

[29] DuanJ, DengF, LiWS, et al.. Differences in the mandibular premolar positions in Angle Class I subjects with different verticalfacial types: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod, 2015, 45(4): 180-189