<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Objective: The objective of the present study was to evaluate condylar, ramal and condylar+ramal mandibular vertical asymmetry in a group of patients with different vertical skeletal patterns.
Methods: Mandibular condylar and ramal measurements of 104 patients were performed on panoramic radiographic images and asymmetry indices were obtained according to the Habets’ formula. The study groups consisted of 35 hypodivergent, 34 normodivergent and 35 hyperdivergent patients. Data were statistically analysed by means of two-way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and Pearson chi square tests.
Results: Ramal height was significantly higher in the hypodivergent group (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05). No significant differences were found between the vertical skeletal pattern groups in relation to the asymmetry indices (<italic>p</italic> > 0.05).
Conclusion: Condylar asymmetry values were found to be higher than a 3% threshold value in all groups, but no significant differences were observed between the groups. The effect of the vertical skeletal pattern on vertical mandibular asymmetry was found to be insignificant.
</abstract>

Objective: The objective of the present study was to evaluate condylar, ramal and condylar+ramal mandibular vertical asymmetry in a group of patients with different vertical skeletal patterns.
Methods: Mandibular condylar and ramal measurements of 104 patients were performed on panoramic radiographic images and asymmetry indices were obtained according to the Habets’ formula. The study groups consisted of 35 hypodivergent, 34 normodivergent and 35 hyperdivergent patients. Data were statistically analysed by means of two-way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and Pearson chi square tests.
Results: Ramal height was significantly higher in the hypodivergent group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the vertical skeletal pattern groups in relation to the asymmetry indices (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Condylar asymmetry values were found to be higher than a 3% threshold value in all groups, but no significant differences were observed between the groups. The effect of the vertical skeletal pattern on vertical mandibular asymmetry was found to be insignificant.

Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in patients with different vertical skeletal patterns

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Objective: The objective of the present study was to evaluate condylar, ramal and condylar+ramal mandibular vertical asymmetry in a group of patients with different vertical skeletal patterns.
Methods: Mandibular condylar and ramal measurements of 104 patients were performed on panoramic radiographic images and asymmetry indices were obtained according to the Habets’ formula. The study groups consisted of 35 hypodivergent, 34 normodivergent and 35 hyperdivergent patients. Data were statistically analysed by means of two-way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and Pearson chi square tests.
Results: Ramal height was significantly higher in the hypodivergent group (p  0.05).
Conclusion: Condylar asymmetry values were found to be higher than a 3% threshold value in all groups, but no significant differences were observed between the groups. The effect of the vertical skeletal pattern on vertical mandibular asymmetry was found to be insignificant.

Objective: The objective of the present study was to evaluate condylar, ramal and condylar+ramal mandibular vertical asymmetry in a group of patients with...

		Group 1 (hypodivergent)
	right mean (mm) ± SD	left mean (mm) ± SD	test
CH	9.67 ± 2.77	10.17 ± 7.5	NS
RH	62.32 ± 6.74	63.95 ± 6.46	0.037*
CH+RH	71.99 ± 7.31	74.32 ± 7.27	NS
		Group 2 (normodivergent)
CH	8.16 ± 1.96	9.05 ± 2.02	NS
RH	61.85 ± 8.77	60.75 ± 8.06	NS
CH+RH	70 ± 9.19	69.8 ± 8.67	NS
		Group 3 (hyperdivergent)
CH	8.64 ± 2.11	9.2 ± 2.26	NS
RH	61.3 ± 6.62	61.18 ± 7.34	NS
CH+RH	69.95 ± 8.02	70.39 ± 8.27	NS

Parameter	Groups	Mean(%)	SD	min	max	p value
Condylar AI	Hypodivergent	10.23	8.36	0.46	31.65
	Normodivergent	10.13	6.67	0	23.16	0.078
	Hyperdivergent	6.89	5.7	0	19.7
Ramal AI	Hypodivergent	2.82	2.88	0	9.92
	Normodivergent	2.58	2.33	0	9.88	0.802
	Hyperdivergent	2.74	2.35	0.18	11.39
Total AI	Hypodivergent	2.8	2.59	0	10.28
	Normodivergent	2.45	1.94	0	7.81	0.76
	Hyperdivergent	2.31	2.15	0	8.87

Parameter	Mean (mm)	SD	min	max	p value
right CH	8.83	2.38	4.9	15.1	0.001*
left CH	9.48	2.31	5	15.4
right RH	61.82	7.37	48.3	89	0.763
left RH	61.97	7.38	48.6	82.9
right CH+RH	70.66	8.18	55	98.3	0.065
left CH+RH	71.52	8.25	55.4	92.7

			Age (y)
Groups	Gender	N	Mean	SD
Hypodivergent (SNGoGN ≤ 28)	Male	17	13.65	2.4
	Female	18	14.28	2.1
	total	35 (33.65%)	13.97	2.2
Normodivergent (28 ≤ SNGoGN ≤ 36)	Male	9	15	2.2
	Female	25	13.36	1.8
	total	34 (32.7%)	13.79	1.9
Hyperdivergent (36 ≤ SNGoGN)	Male	13	14.54	1.3
	Female	22	14.14	1.9
	total	35 (33.65%)	14.29	1.7

Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in patients with different vertical skeletal patterns

Article Category: research-article

Data publikacji: 13 lip 2021

Zakres stron: 85 - 92

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2021-009

© 2021 Esra Bolat et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

The comparison of the right and left side measurements according to the vertical skeletal pattern.

The relationships between the AI values and the vertical skeletal pattern.

The mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum and p values of the condylar, ramal and condylar+ramal height measurement for the left and right sides.

Age and gender distributions of the study groups.