Open Access

Influence of maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy on angulation of maxillary molars in individuals with skeletal open bite

  • Luis Ernesto Arriola-Guillén1Email author,
  • Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo2 and
  • Carlos Flores-Mir3
Progress in Orthodontics201617:34

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-016-0147-8

Received: 2 August 2016

Accepted: 19 September 2016

Published: 1 November 2016

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy (MPDD) on the angulation of maxillary molars in open bite subjects.

Methods

Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of 90 young adults with skeletal open bite were examined. The sample initially included six groups categorized according to MPDD condition (present or absent) and sagittal skeletal facial growth patterns (classes I, II, or III). Then, the sample was separated into two groups according to MPDD (present = 50, absent = 40). When the eruption of the maxillary third molar was apparently blocked by the presence of an erupted second molar, a MPDD was considered. Maxillary molar angulation was measured. Independent T test was performed to determine differences between the groups considering MPDD condition. Principal component analysis (PCA) and multivariate analysis (MANCOVA) test were also developed.

Results

A decreased molar angulation was found in all groups with MPDD (overall p < 0.001, class I—p < 0.001, class II—p < 0.001, and class III—p < 0.05). The maxillary first and second molars angulations were lower between approximately 7° and 14° in cases with posterior discrepancy. The PCA was used to reduce the number of initial cephalometric variables; thereafter, a MANCOVA test was applied. Significance was only found for MPDD (p < 0.001), APDI (p = 0.001), and ratio (A′6′/A′P′) (p = 0.026) for maxillary first molar angulation and APDI (p = 0.011) and MPDD (p < 0.001) for maxillary second molar angulation.

Conclusions

The MPDD generates a major mesial displacement of the second and first molar roots with a concurrent simultaneous distal angulation of the associated crowns in individuals with skeletal open bite.

Keywords

Posterior discrepancy Molar angulation Open bite Cephalometry

Background

The angulation of posterior molars has been studied in several papers [14] including individuals with different sagittal malocclusions associated with different sagittal and vertical growth patterns, but none so far has evaluated the specific impact of maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancies (MPDD) (apparent lack of space for erupting third molars by inadequate pathway eruption) on molar angulations. It has been suggested that posterior discrepancies may be related to crowding relapse and third molar impaction [510]. Nevertheless, the majority of orthodontists and oral surgeons do not consider the preventive third molar extraction in order to prevent anterior crowding [11]. There are a few systematic reviews [1214] in literature unsupportive on the role of the third molars in the development of late incisal crowding. In addition, it has been shown that a maxillary posterior discrepancy is not necessarily associated with increases in maxillary molar vertical eruption, overbite, or anterior lower facial height [15]. One hypothesis suggests that the posterior discrepancy should have an increase in the mesial angulation of the upper first and second molars (involving their crowns and roots) [610], while another hypothesis suggests that in MPDD cases, the pressure from the erupting maxillary third molar generates a mesial push over the second molar roots with a concurrent simultaneous distal tipping of their crowns [1].

Because of the existing controversy for either one of the described hypothesis, namely mesialization of posterior molars or a distoangulation of the molar crown with a concomitant mesialization of their roots, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the MPDD on the sagittal inclination of maxillary molars in open bite individuals with different sagittal malocclusions. If such associations existed, then this information could be useful for clinicians when treatment planning biomechanical approaches to cases with potential MPDD, especially in subject with skeletal open bite.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the ethical committee of the School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.

Sample characteristics

The sample included 90 pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of Latin-American individuals (45 male, 45 female). These cases were part of a previously published [15] sample of cases. All the cephalograms were taken at maximum intercuspidation with the lips at rest in subjects aged 15 to 30 years old (21.50 ± 4.48). Imaging was performed with a digital cephalometric panoramic equipment (ProMax®, Planmeca, Finland) with settings set at 16 mA, 72 kV, and 9.9 s. Cephalometric analyses were performed digitally by two calibrated examiners with MicroDicom viewer software (version 0.8.1; Simeon Antonov Stoykov, Sofia, Bulgaria), without magnification, at a scale of 1:1.

Subjects with previous orthodontic treatment, tumors, infection or prosthetic molar reconstruction in the maxillary molar region and without maxillary third molars (extracted or missing) or any other missing/extracted permanent teeth were not considered.

Although a convenience sample of available records was used, sample size was calculated to demonstrate external validity. The sample size was calculated considering a mean difference of 10° in the maxillary second molar sagittal inclination as a clinically relevant difference between groups with and without MPDD. A standard deviation of 4° was considered (obtained from a preliminary pilot study) with a two-sided significance level of 0.01 and a power of 90 %. Although a minimum of five subjects per group was required, at least eight subjects per group were available. The calculated sample was 30 subjects; however, data from 90 subjects that met the selection criteria in a reference center of imaging were included.

Sample grouping

The study sample included six groups categorized according to their MPDD condition (present or absent) and to their sagittal skeletal facial growth patterns (classes I, II, or III) [1619] (Table 1).
Table 1

Sample distribution by group, sex, and age

Group

Male

Female

Total

Agea

Mean (SD)

OBCIG-PD

9

9

18

20.40 (4.67)

OBCIG-WPD

4

6

10

20.87 (4.79)

OBCIIG-PD

6

13

19

22.64 (5.39)

OBCIIG-WPD

11

11

22

21.74 (4.46)

OBCIIIG-PD

8

5

13

20.67 (3.83)

OBCIIIG-WPD

7

1

8

22.69 (3.79)

Total

45

45

90

 

aNot significant based on independent T test according to posterior discrepancy by groups

OBCIG open bite class I group, OBCIIG open bite class II group, OBCIIIG open bite class III group, PD posterior discrepancy, WPD without posterior discrepancy

The definitions of the cephalometric points, distances, and angles [1822] between them are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Definitions of cephalometric points and angles used in this study

Angular measurements

Definition

 SNA

The angle between points sella (S), nasion (N), and subnasal (A) in degrees [16]

 SNB

The angle between points sella (S), nasion (N), and supra mental (B) in degrees [16]

 ANB

The angle to assess the skeletal relationship between points A and B in degrees [16]

 APDI

The anterior-posterior dysplasia indicator to assess the skeletal relationship and is obtained from the algebraic sum of the angles N-Pg-FH (facial plane) plus/minus the angle AB-facial lane (is positive when the point B is ahead of point A and is negative when the point A is ahead of point B) and plus/minus the angle FH-PP (palatal plane) (is negative when PP is tilted upward and positive when tilted down) [17]

 FMP

The angle between the porion-orbital line and mandibular line in degrees

 ODI

The overbite depth indicator to assess the tendency toward open bite is obtained from the algebraic sum of the angles AB-MP plus/minus the angle FH-PP (palatal plane) and is negative when PP is tilted upward and positive when tilted down [18]

 Maxillary first molar angulation

The angle formed by the maxillary first molar axis (intercuspid groove-bifurcation) and the palatal plane (ANS-PNS), represented by a horizontal line

 Maxillary second molar angulation

The angle formed by the maxillary second molar axis (intercuspid groove-bifurcation) and the palatal plane (ANS-PNS), represented by a horizontal line

Linear measurements

Definition

 A′P′

The distance between the perpendicular extensions of points A and P on the palatal plane (A′P′) in millimeters: point A′ is the perpendicular projection of point A to the palatal plane and point P′ is the perpendicular projection of the posterior—most point of the maxillary tuberosity to the palatal plane [6, 9, 19]

 A′6′

The distance between A′ and 6′ in millimeters, the anterior maxillary base length is defined by the measurement between A′ and 6′. Point 6′ is the perpendicular projection of the anterior-most point on the proximal surface of the maxillary first molar to the palatal plane [6, 9, 19]

 Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

The ratio of the anterior maxillary base length A′6′ to the maxillary base length A′P′ (A′6′/A′P′) [6, 9, 19]

 Overbite

The overbite in millimeters is the distance between incisal edge of maxillary and mandibular central incisor, perpendicular to occlusal plane [20]

 Lower anterior facial height (LAFH)

The length in millimeters of a line between points anterior nasal spine (ANS) and mental (Me) [21]

 Ratio facial height (S-Go/N-Me × 100)

The ratio of posterior facial height and anterior facial height [22]

All subjects had a skeletal open bite (FMP angle greater than 26°, ODI lower than 72°, and lower anterior facial height greater than 67 mm) (Table 3).
Table 3

Sample characteristics by facial growth pattern and maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

Measurement

Group

Mean

SD

Group

Mean

SD

SNA

OBCIG-PD

81.17*

2.89

OBCIG-WPD

84.54*

4.82

SNB

78.65

3.35

81.03

4.45

ANB

2.54

1.20

3.47

1.41

APDI

83.45

2.93

81.95

2.26

FMP

30.48

2.70

31.15

3.11

A′P′

42.45*

2.89

47.07*

3.10

A′6′

21.48

2.16

20.66

2.71

Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

0.50*

0.04

0.44*

0.03

ODI

64.70

5.01

68.19

5.60

Overbite

−1.58

1.07

−2.50

1.52

Lower anterior facial height

67.99

4.88

69.31

3.85

Ratio facial height

60.73

3.04

62.50

3.22

SNA

OBCIIG-PD

80.97

3.09

OBCIIG-WPD

82.51

2.79

SNB

74.54

2.90

75.83

2.99

ANB

6.42

1.44

6.68

1.24

APDI

74.06

3.37

75.41

3.20

FMP

34.93

4.84

34.02

4.28

A′P′

43.62

3.63

45.96

2.72

A′6′

23.02*

2.68

21.23*

2.77

Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

0.52*

0.04

0.46*

0.05

ODI

70.39

5.14

71.56

5.95

Overbite

−2.25

1.56

−2.99

1.29

Lower anterior facial height

70.54

5.69

73.44

5.12

Ratio facial height

58.50

3.41

59.70

3.23

SNA

OBCIIIG-PD

81.84*

3.27

OBCIIIG-WPD

78.22*

2.31

SNB

83.45*

4.16

80.14*

1.90

ANB

−1.61

1.36

−1.92

1.53

APDI

91.51*

4.48

87.67*

1.68

FMP

31.91

3.60

29.21

3.36

A′P′

43.88

5.00

44.06

4.32

A′6′

20.68

2.18

19.71

2.12

Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

0.48*

0.06

0.44*

0.05

ODI

56.30*

4.55

62.99*

1.11

Overbite

−1.97

1.67

−1.78

1.54

Lower anterior facial height

70.37*

4.18

74.27*

2.55

Ratio facial height

59.84

2.36

60.52

1.65

*Significant based on Independent T test

Therefore, the groups were set as follows:
  • ο Open bite class I group with maxillary posterior discrepancy OBCIG-PD (n = 18): ANB angle between 0° and 5°, antero posterior dysplasia indicator (APDI) of 81.4° ± 4°, angle class I malocclusion, bilateral class I molar relations, overjet between 1 to 5 mm, negative overbite greater than 0.5 mm, and diagnosed with maxillary posterior discrepancy

  • ο Open bite class I group without maxillary posterior discrepancy (OBCIG-WPD) (n = 10): the same with the OBCIG-PD, but without posterior discrepancy

  • ο Open bite class II group with maxillary posterior discrepancy (OBCIIG-PD) (n = 19): ANB > 5°, APDI < 75°, angle class II-1 malocclusion, bilateral class II molar relations, overjet greater than 5 mm, negative overbite greater than 0.5 mm, and diagnosed with maxillary posterior discrepancy

  • ο Open bite class II group without maxillary posterior discrepancy (OBCIIG-WPD) (n = 22): the same with the OBCIIG-PD, but without posterior discrepancy

  • ο Open bite class III group with maxillary posterior discrepancy (OBCIIIG-PD) (n = 13): ANB < 0°, APDI > 88°, angle class III malocclusion, bilateral class III molar relations, overjet lower than −1 mm, negative overbite greater than 0.5 mm, and diagnosed with maxillary posterior discrepancy

  • ο Open bite class III group without maxillary posterior discrepancy (OBCIIIG-WPD) (n = 8): the same with the OBCIIIG-PD, but without posterior discrepancy

When both cephalometric methods (ANB and APDI) to diagnose sagittal skeletal facial growth pattern did not agree an additional evaluation that included the analysis of skeletal facial profile (sagittal relationship of the points N, A, and Pg), overjet, anteroposterior malocclusion, and soft profile convexity was considered before making a decision to which sagittal malocclusion group to assign any included case. All cephalometric radiographs were evaluated randomly.

Maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy (MPDD)

The dichotomous primary diagnosis of maxillary posterior discrepancy was made through radiographic evaluation by two calibrated examiners (LEAG, AADC). When the eruption of the maxillary third molar was apparently blocked by the presence of the erupted second, a maxillary posterior discrepancy was deemed present (Figs. 1 and 2).
Fig. 1

Example of MPDD. The third molar was potentially blocked by the presence of the erupted second molar

Fig. 2

Example of MPDD. The third molar was potentially blocked by the presence of the erupted second molar

In addition, for statistical analysis purposes, the ratio of the anterior maxillary base length A′6′ to the maxillary base length A′P′ (A′6/ A′P′) was also calculated as a continuous variable that reflects maxillary posterior discrepancy (Fig. 3, Table 2). If the radio of the anterior maxillary base length A′6′ to the maxillary base length A′P′ (A′6/ A′P′) was greater than 0.46, then a maxillary posterior discrepancy was suggested [6, 9, 19]
Fig. 3

MPDD evaluated by the ratio of the anterior maxillary base length A′6′ to the maxillary base length A′P′ (A′6′/A′P′)

Maxillary molar sagittal angulation

The sagittal angulations of maxillary first and second molars were measured by the angle formed by the molar axis (intercuspid groove—root bifurcation) and the palatal plane (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Evaluation of molar sagittal angulations

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Ver.22 for Windows (IBM SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Data distribution normality was according to Shapiro-Wilk tests. An independent T test was performed to determine differences between two groups classified by the MPDD condition (present or absent) and sagittal malocclusion. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the number of variables considered during the multivariate analysis. Finally, a multivariate analysis (MANCOVA) test was applied considering the effect of SNB, ANB, APDI, A′P′, ratio (A′6′/A′P′), overbite, lower anterior facial height, ratio facial height, maxillary posterior discrepancy, and sex (reduced by the PCA from the initial cephalometric variables) on the molar sagittal angulations (outcome variable). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all the tests.

Results

Reliability

Inter and intra-examiner reliability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). All cephalometric values were greater than 0.979 (CI 95 % 0.954–0.999). In addition, the Dahlberg error was less than 1° for all angular measurements and 1 mm for all lineal measurements. All the cephalometric tracings were made with at least a 1-month interval between them and were performed by the same two different examiners.

Outcome variables

Table 3 shows the characteristics of the six groups by skeletal facial growth pattern and maxillary posterior discrepancy.

Descriptive statistics of the outcome variables can be found in Table 4. The maxillary first and second molar angulations in individuals with maxillary posterior discrepancy had a major distal crown tipping. The maxillary first molar angulation in the OBCIG-PD was 79.74° ± 4.69° and OBCIG-WPD was 88.41° ± 4.19° (p < 0.001), in the OBCIIG-PD was 74.17° ± 6.15° and OBCIIG-WPD was 83.67° ± 5.55° (p < 0.001), and in the OBCIIIG-PD was 82.85° ± 5.50° and OBCIIIG-WPD was 89.58° ± 1.94° (p = 0.004). The maxillary second molar angulation in the OBCIG-PD was 71.04° ± 4.99° and OBCIG-WPD was 82.94° ± 7.75° (p < 0.001), in the OBCIIG-PD was 61.98 ± 7.80° and OBCIIG-WPD was 79.27° ± 7.74° (p < 0.001), and in the OBCIIIG-PD was 71.39° ± 7.25° and OBCIIIG-WPD was 85.59° ± 1.71° (p < 0.001).
Table 4

Maxillary molar angulation according to maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy and facial growth pattern

Measurement

Group

Mean

SD

Min

Max

p

Maxillary first molar angulation

OBCIG-PD

79.74

4.69

73.00

89.39

<0.001*

OBCIG-WPD

88.41

4.19

80.92

92.85

OBCIIG-PD

74.17

6.15

64.42

86.95

<0.001*

OBCIIG-WPD

83.67

5.55

72.65

92.35

OBCIIIG-PD

82.85

5.50

75.58

95.10

0.004*

OBCIIIG-WPD

89.58

1.94

86.99

92.93

Maxillary second molar angulation

OBCIG-PD

71.04

4.99

59.22

78.79

<0.001*

OBCIG-WPD

82.94

7.75

64.24

90.06

OBCIIG-PD

61.98

7.80

48.45

74.49

<0.001*

OBCIIG-WPD

79.27

7.74

62.16

94.56

OBCIIIG-PD

71.39

7.25

59.27

86.07

<0.001*

OBCIIIG-WPD

85.59

1.71

83.10

88.36

*Significant based on T Test

OBCIG open bite class I group, OBCIIG open bite class II group, OBCIIIG open bite class III group, PD posterior discrepancy, WPD without posterior discrepancy

For the final analysis, the sample was separated into two groups according to MPDD (present = 50, absent = 40), trying to know the influence of MPDD in all types of malocclusion with open bite on the angulation of the upper molars. We also found significant differences between the two groups, p < 0.001 (Table 5).
Table 5

Maxillary molar angulation according to maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

Measurement

Group

Number

Mean

SD

Mean difference

Confidence interval 95 %

p

Lower limit

Upper limit

Maxillary first molar angulation

With maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

50

78.43

6.46

7.61

5.07

10.13

<0.001*

Without maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

40

86.04

5.33

Maxillary second molar angulation

With maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

50

67.69

8.01

13.76

10.51

17.01

<0.001*

 

Without maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

40

81.45

7.31

*Independent T test

Through a PCA (Table 6), it was determined that ANB, FMP, and ODI, as well as SNA, and A′P′, equally A′6′, and ratio (A′6′/A′P′) were significantly associated in this sample. SNB, ANB, APDI, A′P′, ratio (A′6′/A′P′), overbite, lower anterior facial height, ratio facial height maxillary posterior discrepancy, and sex were obtained after the reduction of the number of variables considered and were used in the MANCOVA. Significance was only found for maxillary posterior discrepancy (p < 0.001), APDI (p = 0.001), and ratio (A′6′/A′P′) (p = 0.026) for maxillary first molar angulation and APDI (p = 0.011) and maxillary posterior discrepancy (p < 0.001) for maxillary second molar angulation (Table 7).
Table 6

Principal component analysis to reduce the number of variables under study

Variables

Component

1

2

3

4

SNA

−0.11

0.79a

0.09

0.11

SNB

−0.80

0.47

0.24

−0.03

ANB

0.89a

0.15

−0.21

0.15

APDI

−0.91

0.06

0.14

−0.15

FMP

0.62a

−0.03

0.43

−0.37

A′P′

0.17

0.77a

−0.10

−0.27

A′6′

0.41

0.47

0.59a

0.34

Ratio

0.27

−0.07

0.70a

0.59

ODI

0.59a

0.18

−0.58

0.37

Overbite

−0.27

−0.46

0.16

0.39

Lower anterior facial height

−0.40

0.16

0.24

−0.58

Ratio facial height

−0.42

0.47

−0.32

0.44

aRelated

Table 7

MANCOVA assessing maxillary first and second molar angulations based in fixed factors and co-variables

Dependent variable

Fixed factors and co-variables

p

Maxillary first molar angulation

Corrected model

<0.001*

Intercept

0.025*

SNB

0.200

ANB

0.971

APDI

0.001*

A′P′

0.061

Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

0.026*

Overbite

0.341

Lower anterior facial height

0.587

Ratio facial height

0.207

Maxillary posterior discrepancy

<0.001*

Sex

0.292

Maxillary second molar angulation

Corrected model

<0.001*

Intercept

0.824

SNB

0.613

ANB

0.714

APDI

0.011*

A′P′

0.576

Ratio (A′6′/A′P′)

0.881

Overbite

0.229

Lower anterior facial height

0.652

Ratio facial height

0.238

Maxillary posterior discrepancy

<0.001*

Sex

0.777

*Significant based on MANCOVA test

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of MPDD on the sagittal angulation of maxillary molars in skeletal open bite subjects. Overall, it was found that MPDD was associated with a significant mesial angulation of the second and first molar roots with a concurrent simultaneous distal angulation of the associated crowns. The findings are clinically relevant as they allow clinicians to consider these associations when facing patients with a potential MPDD. Their treatment decisions could be affected based on the degree of third molar angulation and how the erupted first and second molars are distally angulated in such cases. Distal molar movement in class II malocclusions should be careful in such scenario as this type of movements tends to distally angulate molar crowns. The method utilized to diagnose maxillary posterior discrepancy used a radiographic visual assessment by two calibrated examiners (LEAG, AADC), where the sagittal maxillary length and the portrayed trajectory of eruption of the third molars were considered. An unfavorable maxillary third molar eruption angulation would likely imply impaction (Figs. 1 and 2). In the literature, it has been proposed that maxillary posterior discrepancy should be determined by the ratio between the space from point A′ to mesial of the maxillary first molar, in relation to the space from point A′ to the most posterior point of the maxillary tuberosity [6, 9, 19]. When this ratio is increased, the chances of third molars having space for their eruption are diminished (Fig. 3).

The expected results, based on Kim [8] and Sato [9] hypothesis, were that there should be an increase in the mesial inclination of maxillary first and second molars (involving their crowns) that could promote posterior teeth interferences and therefore create a potential open bite scenario. However, the results of the current study suggested that maxillary molars showed more distally inclined crowns in the posterior discrepancy group. All the groups with posterior discrepancy showed significantly more distal molar crown angulation. This phenomenon supports the second hypothesis that the pressure from the erupting maxillary third molar against the anteriorly positioned molars may generate a major mesial displacement of the second and first molars roots with a concurrent simultaneous distal angulation of the associated crowns. These findings are in concordance with previous findings [1] where impacted third molars were observed to produce a distal angulation effect on the adjacent molars (involving their crowns) in subjects without open bite. Similar findings were observed in other studies [4, 23] showing that in high-angle cases, a greater degree of distal angulation of first molars was found. The latter suggested natural dentoalveolar compensation as potential explanation for the results.

Limitations

In this study, a maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy (defined in this study as an apparent lack of space for a complete maxillary third molar eruption) could be considered equivalent to maxillary third molar impaction.

A longitudinal cohort design would generate stronger data to support or refute the evaluated hypothesis and could use CBCT if possible, trying to avoid the superimpositions, although in this paper were excluded radiographs that showed evidently this problem.

Since open bite individuals without maxillary posterior discrepancy could have unerupted third molars with available space and good eruption pattern or third molars in occlusion, ideally, a study considering the maxillary molars inclination using open bite individuals with posterior discrepancy and open bite individuals with fully erupted third molar should follow-up. Results of such studies may or not support this study’s conclusion.

Previously, two studies [1, 24] used complete root formation with the highest part of third molar below the cervical line of second molar as a criterion for third molar impaction, but they do not consider the direction of eruption that is likely directly related to the impaction potential. In addition, the third molar’s roots are not fully formed until 20 to 22 years of age [24]. Accordingly, third molar impaction could be over diagnosed when examining subjects younger than 20 years old. In the current study, the subjects were between 15 to 30 years old. This could be considered a weakness, but it was, at least partially, controlled considering the eruption trajectory of third molar crowns as an independent factor from complete root formation.

The association between the severity of maxillary molar crown distal inclination and the degree of MPDD was not evaluated in this study.

Conclusions

The maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy generates a major mesial displacement of the second and first molar roots with a concurrent simultaneous distal angulation of the associated crowns in individuals with skeletal open bite.

Abbreviations

MPDD: 

Maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy

PD: 

Posterior discrepancy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Cientifica del Sur University, where the measurements were performed.

Authors’ contributions

LEAG participated in the study conception, the data collection, the manuscript formatting, and the statistical analysis. AADC participated in the study conception, the data collection, and the manuscript formatting. CFM participated in the manuscript formatting, the statistical analysis, and the data interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Approved by the ethical committee of the School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur - UCSUR
(2)
Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo
(3)
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta

References

  1. Badawi Fayad J, Levy JC, Yazbeck C, Cavezian R, Cabanis EA. Eruption of third molars: relationship to inclination of adjacent molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:200–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stanaityté R, Trakiniené G, Gervickas A. Lower dental arch changes after bilateral third molar removal. Stomatologija. 2014;16:31–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Liao CH, Yang P, Zhao ZH, Zhao MY. Study on the posterior teeth mesiodistal tipping degree of normal occlusion subjects among different facial growth patterns. West China J Stomatol. 2010;28:374–7.Google Scholar
  4. Su H, Han B, Li S, Na B, Ma W, Xu TM. Compensation trends of the angulation of first molars: retrospective study of 1403 malocclusion cases. Int J Oral Sci. 2014;6:175–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Merrifield LL, Klontz HA, Vaden JL. Differential diagnostic analysis system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106:641–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sato S. Alteration of occlusal plane due to posterior discrepancy related to development of malocclusion—introduction to denture frame analysis. Bull Kanagawa Dent Coll. 1987;15:115–23.Google Scholar
  7. Sato S, Takamoto K, Suzuki Y. Posterior discrepancy and development of skeletal class III malocclusion: its importance in orthodontic correction of skeletal class III malocclusions. Orthodontic Review. 1988;2:16–29.Google Scholar
  8. Kim YH. Anterior openbite and its treatment with multiloop edgewise archwire. Angle Orthod. 1987;57:290–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sato S. An approach to the treatment of malocclusion in consideration of dentofacial dynamics. Tokyo: Torin Books; 1991. In Japanese.Google Scholar
  10. Kim YH, Han UK, Lim DD, Serraon ML. Stability of anterior openbite correction with multiloop edgewise archwire therapy: a cephalometric follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:43–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gavazzi M, De Angelis D, Blasi S, Pesce P, Lanteri V. Third molars and dental crowding: different opinions of orthodontists and oral surgeons among Italian practitioners. Progress in Orthodontics 2014, doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0060-y
  12. Costa MG, Pazzini CA, Pantuzo MC, Jorge ML, Marques LS. Is there justification for prophylactic extraction of third molars? A systematic review. Braz Oral Res. 2013;27:183–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Zawawi KH, Melis M. The role of mandibular third molars on lower anterior teeth crowding and relapse after orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Sci World J. 2014;2014:615429.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Stanaityté R, Trakiniene G, Gervickas A. Do wisdom teeth induce lower anterior teeth crowding? A systematic literature review. Stomatologija. 2014;16:15–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Arriola-Guillén LE, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Pérez-Vargas LF, Flores-Mir C. Influence of maxillary posterior discrepancy on upper molar vertical position and facial vertical dimensions in subjects with or without skeletal open bite. 2015. Eur J Orthod. 1-8, doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv067
  16. Steiner C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39:729–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod. 1978;73:619–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim YH. Overbite depth indicator with particular reference to anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod. 1974;65:586–611.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Celar AG, Freudenthaler JW, Celar RM, Jonke E, Schneider B. The denture frame analysis: an additional diagnostic tool. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:579–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Janson G, Crepaldi MV, de Freitas KM, de Freitas MR, Janson W. Evaluation of anterior open-bite treatment with occlusal adjustment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:10–1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McNamara Jr JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:449–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarabak JR, Fizzell JA. Technique and treatment with light wire edgewise appliances. Saint Louis: CV Mosby; 1972.Google Scholar
  23. Chang YI, Moon SC. Cephalometric evaluation of the anterior open bite treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:29–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim TW, Artun J, Behbehani F, Artese F. Prevalence of third molar impaction in orthodontic patients treated nonextraction and with extraction of 4 premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:138–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement