Research Article of International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews
To evaluate the changes in Natural Head Position after Orthognathic surgeries in Class II patients and Class III patients
1Dr Tejaswi J V, 2Dr PadmaPriya C V, 3Dr D Praveen Kumar Varma, 4Dr Anoosha M
1. Post graduate student, Department of Orthodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Andhra Pradesh.
4. Senior lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Andhra Pradesh.
After the introduction of cephalometric radiography, orthodontists have been using cephalometric analysis to plan orthodontic treatment and to evaluate the treatment results. For cephalometric analysis, Sella-Nasion plane and the Frankfort horizontal plane are considered as stable horizontal reference planes. Unfortunately, measurements based on the Frankfort horizontal plane do not always correspond with clinical examination. Therefore, the use of the true horizontal line (THL) and true vertical line (TVL) as alternatives seems to be advisable.
This study was done in order to compare and evaluate the changes in natural head position in patients who underwent maxillary Lefort I osteotomy and mandibular set back orthognathic surgery. Thirteen pre treatment(T1) and post treatment(T2) lateral cephalometric radiographs were collected. The T1 lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the beginning of the treatment, and the T2 data immediately after the removal of the orthodontic appliances. The patients were instructed to stand in their natural position. 9 landmarks and 6 reference planes were traced. Results showed that Class I patients who had received conventional orthodontic treatment showed a minimal or no change in their NHP, but some Class III patients showed a change in their NHP,which tended towards head extension. Patients who have undergone Lefort I surgery and BSSO set back have shown the changes in their natural head position the differences were in their SNA, SNB, ANB, Facial contour angle and Frankfort horizontal plane angle.
Keywords: Natural head position, conventional orthodontic treatment, Lefort I surgery, BSSO set back.
How to cite this article:
Tejaswi J V, PadmaPriya C V, D Praveen Kumar Varma, Anoosha M. To evaluate the changes in Natural Head Position after Orthognathic surgeries in Class II patients and Class III patients. International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews, 2019, 2:14
1. SolowB, Sandham A. Craniocervical posture a factor in the development and functionof Dentofacial structures. EurJOrthod,2002;24:447–56.
2. Cooke MS. Five year reproducibility of natural head posture: A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthod. 1990;97:489-94.
3. Peng L, Cooke MS. Fifteen year reproducibility of natural head posture: A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthod.1991;116:82-5.
4. Lundstrom A. Orientation of profile radiographs and photos intended for publication of case reports. Proc Finn Dent Sot1981;77:105-11.
5. Ellis D 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Cephalometric reference planes—sella nasion vs Frankfort horizontal. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1988;3:81-7.
6. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Douvartzidis N. A comparison of outcomes of orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;101:556–65.
7. Naveen Bansal, Jeetinder Singla, Gurmeet Gera, Monika Gupta, Gurpreet Kaur. Reliability of natural head position in orthodontic diagnosis: A cephalometric study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Apr-Jun 2012.
8. Moorrees CFA, Tandarts MEV, Lebret LML, Glatky CB, Kent RL Jr, Reed RB. New norms for the mesh diagram analysis.Am J Orthod 1976;69:57-71.
9. Cooke MS. Cephalometric analyses based on natural head posture of Chinese children in Hong Kong [Ph.D. thesis]. University of Hong Kong [submitted], 1986.
10. Spradley FL, Jacobs JD, Crowe DP. Assessment of the anteroposterior soft-tissue contour of the lower facial third in the ideal young adult. Am J Orthod 1981;79:316-25.
11. Sugawara J, Kawamura H. Principle and practice of contemporary surgical orthodontics. Osaka, Japan: Tokyo Rinsho Shuppan; 2000.
12. Vig PS, Rink JF, Showfety KJ. Adaptation of head posture in response to relocating the center of mass: a pilot study. Am J Orthod 1983;83:138-42.
13. McLaughlin RP. Facial and dental planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. St Louis: Mosby; 2004. 95-6.
14. Athanasiou AE. Orthodontic Cephalometry. St Louis: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995. p. 134-5.
15. Bjern R. A comparison between the Frankfort horizontal and the sella turcica-nasion as reference plane in cephalometric analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 1957;15:1-12.
16. Brynolf F, M Lundberg, The Soft-Tissue Facial Profile Before and After Surgical Correction of Mandibular Protrusion. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 1969: 28(2) 157-177.
17. Phillips C. The effect of orthognathic surgery on head posture. Eur J Orthod. 1991 Oct;13(5):397-403.
18. Dohyun Cho, Dong-Soon Choi, Insan Jang, Bong-Kuen. Changes in natural head position after orthognathic surgery in skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:747-54.
19. Z Hedayati, Maryam P, Farbod Z. Comparison of Natural Head Position in Different Anteroposterior Malocclusions. J Dent (Tehran). 2013 May; 10(3): 210–220.
20. Bjork A. Some biological aspects of prognathism and occlusion of the teeth. Angle Orthod. 1951 Jan;21(1):3-27.
21. Muto T, Yamazaki A, Takeda S, Sato Y. Effect of bilateral Sagittal split osteotomy setback on the soft palate and pharyngeal airway space. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 May;37(5):419-23.
22. Hunt OT, Johnston CD, Hepper PG, Burden DJ. The psychosocial impact of orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:490-7.
23. Wenzel A, Williams S, Ritzau M. Changes in head posture and nasopharyngeal airway following surgical correction of mandibular prognathism. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:37-42.