Assessing cervical spine and craniofacial morphology in Class II and Class III malocclusions: A geometric morphometric approach

References

• Gomes L d CR, Horta KOC, Goncalves JR, et al. Systematic review: Craniocervical posture and craniofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(1):55–66. DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjt004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Attilio M, Caputi S, Epifania E, et al. Evaluation of cervical posture of children in skeletal class I, II, and III. CRANIO®. 2005;23(3):219–228. DOI:10.1179/crn.2005.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnesen L. Cervical vertebral column morphology associated with head posture and craniofacial morphology. Semin Orthod. 2012;18(2):118–125.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Sun X, Chen Y, et al. Relationships of sagittal skeletal discrepancy, natural head position, and craniocervical posture in young Chinese children. CRANIO®. 2016;34(3):155–162. DOI:10.1179/2151090315Y.0000000015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatucci A, Raffaeli F, Mastrovincenzo M, et al. Breathing pattern and head posture: changes in craniocervical angles. Minerva Stomatol. 2015;64(2):59–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson Y. Mouth breathing: adverse effects on facial growth, health, academics, and behavior. Gen Dent. 2010;58(1):18–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michelotti A, Buonocore G, Manzo P, et al. Dental occlusion and posture: an overview. Prog Orthod. 2011;12(1):53–58. DOI:10.1016/j.pio.2010.09.010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saccucci M, Tettamanti L, Mummolo S, et al. Scoliosis and dental occlusion: a review of the literature. Scoliosis. 2011;6(1):15. DOI:10.1186/1748-7161-6-15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Solow B, Kreiborg S. Soft-tissue stretching: a possible control factor in craniofacial morphogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1977;85(6):505–507.
   Google Scholar
• Bernal LC, Marin H, Herrera CP, et al. Craniocervical posture in children with class I, II and III skeletal relationships. Braz Res Pediatr Dent Integr Clin. 2017;17(1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Hedayati Z, Paknahad M, Zorriasatine F. Comparison of natural head position in different anteroposterior malocclusions. J Dent. 2013;10(3):210–220.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval C, Díaz A, Manríquez G. Relationship between craniocervical posture and skeletal class: a statistical multivariate approach for studying class II and class III malocclusions. CRANIO®. 2019;39(2):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bookstein FL. Reconsidering “The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics.”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(6):784–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod. 1979;75(6):599–617.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press;1997. Reprint.
   Google Scholar
• O’Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat. 2000;197(1):103–120.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, editors. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Medialdea L, Bazaco C, D’angelo Del Campo MD, et al. Describing the children’s body shape by means of geometric morphometric techniques. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2019;168(4):651–664. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.23779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke SB, Terhune CE. Form, function, and geometric morphometrics: form, function, and geometric morphometrics. Anat Rec. 2015;298(1):5–28.
   Google Scholar
• Katsadouris A, Halazonetis DJ. Geometric morphometric analysis of craniofacial growth between the ages of 12 and 14 in normal humans. Eur J Orthod. 2016;39(4):386–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halazonetis DJ. Morphometrics for cephalometric diagnosis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(5):571–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franchi L, Pavoni C, Cerroni S, et al. Thin-plate spline analysis of mandibular morphological changes induced by early class III treatment: a long-term evaluation. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(4):425–430. DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjt067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcón JA, Bastir M, García-Espona I, et al. Morphological integration of mandible and cranium: Orthodontic implications. Arch Oral Biol. 2014;59(1):22–29. DOI:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freudenthaler J, Čelar A, Ritt C, et al. Geometric morphometrics of different malocclusions in lateral skull radiographs. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(1):11–20. DOI:10.1007/s00056-016-0057-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre GT, Mossey PA. Size and shape measurement in contemporary cephalometrics. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(3):231–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz Muñoz A, Manríquez Soto G. Skeletodental diagnosis using a geometric morphometric approach. Int J Odontostomat. 2014;8(1):5–11.
   Google Scholar
• Chatzigianni A, Halazonetis DJ. Geometric morphometric evaluation of cervical vertebrae shape and its relationship to skeletal maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(4):481.e1–481.e9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCane B, Kean MR. Integration of parts in the facial skeleton and cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(1):e13–e30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray S, Bennani H, Kieser JA, et al. Morphometric analysis of cervical vertebrae in relation to mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(1):92–98. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delaire J, Schendel SA, Tulasne J-F. An architectural and structural craniofacial analysis: a new lateral cephalometric analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1981;52(3):226–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stoyan D, Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Rohlf F. TpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines. Stony Brook:Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York;2006. Version 2.05.
   Google Scholar
• Zelditch M, editor. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–1160. DOI:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez F. Sexual dimorphism of the canine tooth in current population of Santiago de chile: a geometric morphometric approach (dimorfismo sexual del diente canino en población santiaguina actual aplicando morfometría geométrica) [internet] [thesis to qualify for the title of physical anthropologist]. [Career of Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences]: University of Chile; 2017. Available from: http://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/152568.
   Google Scholar
• Bookstein FL. Thin-plate splines and the atlas problem for biomedical images. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. (IPMI’91). Wye, UK. July 1991;326–342.
   Google Scholar
• O’Higgins P, Jones N. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J Anat. 1998;193(2):251–272.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klingenberg CP. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics: Computer program note. Mol Ecol Resour. 2011;11(2):353–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohlf F. The TPS series of software. Hystrix It J Mamm [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 6];26. Available from. http://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-26.1-11264
   Google Scholar
• Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Version 3.14. Paleontologia Electronica. 2001;4(1):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson DA. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology. 1993;74(8):2204–2214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocabado M. Biomechanical relationship of the cranial, cervical, and hyoid regions: a discussion. CRANIO®. 1983;1(3):61–66.
   Google Scholar
• Arntsen T, Sonnesen L. Cervical vertebral column morphology related to craniofacial morphology and head posture in preorthodontic children with Class II malocclusion and horizontal maxillary overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(1):e1–e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aranitasi L, Tarazona B, Zamora N, et al. Influence of skeletal class in the morphology of cervical vertebrae a study using cone beam computed tomography. The Angle Orthod. 2017;87(1):131–137. DOI:10.2319/041416-307.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trajkovic M, Lazic E, Nedeljkovic N, et al. Relationship between the vertical craniofacial disproportions and the cervicovertebral morphology in adult subjects. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2016;144(1–2):15–22. DOI:10.2298/SARH1602015T
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nambiar S, Mogra S, Menon A, et al. Morphometric analysis of cervical vertebrae morphology and correlation of cervical vertebrae morphometry, cervical spine inclination and cranial base angle to craniofacial morphology and stature in an adult skeletal Class I and Class II population. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(4):456. DOI:10.4103/0976-237X.142809
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tauheed S, Shaikh A, Fida M. Cervical posture and skeletal malocclusions – is there a link? J Coll Med Sci-Nepal. 2019;15(1):5–9. doi:10.3126/jcmsn.v15i1.20509
   Google Scholar
• Oh E, Ahn S-J, Sonnesen L. Ethnic differences in craniofacial and upper spine morphology in children with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(3):283–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod. 2005;11(3):119–129.
   Google Scholar
• Srinivasan B, Padmanabhan S, Chitharanjan AB. Constancy of cervical vertebral maturation indicator in adults: a cross-sectional study. Int Orthod. 2018;16(3):486–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould SJ. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsen AT. Association between vertical development of the cervical spine and the face in subjects with varying vertical facial patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(5):597–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salagnac JM, Delaire J, Mercier J. [Vertical development of the face and cervical spine. Diagnostic and therapeutic significance in orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1999;100(1):13–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mercier J. The relationships between the cervical spine and the lower jaw in orthognathic surgery: therapeutic implications (L’intérêt de l’étude des rapports mandibulo-rachidiens dans l’indication opératoire en chirurgie orthognathiquel). Rev Orthop Dento-Faciale. 2007;41(4):461–477. doi:10.1051/odf:20084140461
   Google Scholar