| Abstract | Cilj istraživanja: Utvrditi kefalometrijska obilježja klase II. Materijali i metode: U ovo retrospektivno istraživanje uključeni su ispitanici koji su posjetili Laboratorij za dentalnu radiologiju 3D-Dent u Splitu u razdoblju od listopada 2011. do siječnja 2016. godine. Kraniogrami su napravljeni po standardnom protokolu snimanja aparatom Vatech i3D -Green s pripadajućim CEPH nastavkom. Na odabranim kraniogramima napravljena je kefalometrijska analiza (Zagreb MOD 82 i WITS) u programu AudaxCeph (Audax, Ljubljana, Slovenija). Rezultati: U ovo istraživanje bilo je uključeno 50 ispitanika starosti od 12 do 14 godina. Na odabranim kraniogramima napravljena je kefalometrijska analiza te su potom iz istraživanja isključeni ispitanici koji nisu imali dijagnozu skeletne klase II. Preostalo je 20 ispitanika, 9 djevojčica i 11 dječaka sa skeletnom klasom II. Od toga je u 9 ispitanika uzrok skeletne klase II bio maksilarni prognatizam (45%), a u 7 mandibularni retrognatizam (35%). Kako bi se utvrdilia vertikalna klasifikacija, analiziran je međučeljusni kut: 8 ispitanika je imalo povećan međučeljusni kut, 2 smanjen, a 10 normalan. I u ispitanika s maksilarnim prognatizmom i mandibularnim retrognatizmom češće se javljao vertikalni i normalan obrazac rasta. Neovisno o veličini međučeljusnog kuta najrjeđe se javljao horizontalni obrazac rasta. Ne postoji statistički značajna razlika u javljanju horizontalnog ili vertikalnog obrasca rasta u raznim položajima čeljusti. Što se tiče položaja inciziva, protruzija maksilarnih inciziva se jednako često javljala u ispitanika s maksilarnim prognatizmom (20%) kao i u ispitanika s mandibularnim retrognatizmom (20%) i nešto manje u ispitanika s normalnim sagitalnim odnosom čeljusti (15%), što znači da je u 55% ispitanika bila riječ o klasi II/1. Retruzija maksilarnih inciziva češće se javljala u ispitanika s maksilarnim prognatizmom (20%) u odnosu na ispitanike s mandibularnim retrognatizmom (15%) i one s normalnim sagitalnim odnosom čeljusti (5%), što znači da je u 40% ispitanika bila riječ o klasi II/2. Normalan položaj inciziva utvrđen je samo kod jednog ispitanika s maksilarnim prognatizmom (5%). Ne postoji statistički značajna razlika u pojavljivanju klase II/1 i klase II/2 u kombinaciji s maksilarnim prognatizmom, mandibularnim retrognatizmom ili normalim sagitalnim položajem čeljusti. Zaključak: U klasi II je učestaliji maksilarni prognatizam (45%) od mandibularnog retrognatizma (35%). Iako je utvrđeno da je u dječaka učestaliji maksilarni prognatizam, a u djevojčica mandibularni retrognatizam, ne postoji statistički značajna razlika između spolova. Veći broj ispitanika imao je vertikalni obrazac rasta, kako oni s maksilarnim prognatizmom tako i oni s mandibularnim retrognatizmom, međutim razlika nije statistički značajna. Klasa II/1 i klasa II/2 jednako se pojavljuju u ispitanika s maksilarnim prognatizmom. Nešto više ispitanika s mandibularnim retrognatizmom i normalnim sagitalnim odnosom čeljusti imalo je klasu II/1, međutim nema statistički značajne razlike. |
| Abstract (english) | Objective: To assess cephalometric characteristics of Class II Malocclusion. Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients who visited the '3D-Dent' Dental Radiology Laboratory in Split during the period from October, 2011 till January 2016. The craniograms were produced by Vatech i3D-Green device and its pertaining CEPH extension, in accordance with the standard screening protocol. The cephalometric analysis (Zagreb Mod 82 and WITS) was performed on selected craniograms using AudaxCeph software (Audax, Ljubljana, Slovenia). Results: The study included 50 children aged between 12 and 14 years. After the cephalometric analysis was performed on selected craniograms, the patients not diagnosed with skeletal Class II were excluded from further research. The remaining 20 children, 9 girls and 11 boys, were all diagnosed with skeletal Class II. In 9 children, skeletal Class II was caused by maxillary prognathism (45%), while in 7 of them Class II was caused by mandibular retrognathism (35%). In order to determine the vertical classification, the basal plane angle was analysed: 8 of children had enlarged angle, 2 of them had reduced angle, and 10 of them had a normal basal plane angle. The vertical and normal growth pattern prevailed among subjects with maxillary prognathism as well as among those with mandibular retrognathism. Horizontal growth pattern was the rarest pattern in all three groups. There is no statistically significant difference between either the horizontal or vertical growth pattern in different jaw positions. As for the position of incisors, maxillary incisor protrusion occurred equally among patients with maxillary prognathism (20%) and among patients with mandibular retrognatism (20%). It occurred slightly less in patients with normal sagittal jaw relationship (15%). That means that 55% of the analyzed patients had skeletal Class II/1. Compared to patients with mandibular retrognatism (15%) and those with normal sagittal jaw relationship (5%), retrusion of maxillary incisors occurred in slightly higher degree in patients with maxillary prognathism (20%), meaning that 40% of the patients had skeletal Class II/2. The normal position of incisors was found only in one patient with maxillary prognathism (5%). There is no statistically significant difference between the incidence of Class II/1 and Class II/2 in combination with maxillary prognathism, mandibular retrognatism or normal sagittal jaw position. Conclusion: : In Class II patients, maxillary prognathism is more prevalent (45%) than mandibular retrognathism (35%). Despite the fact that maxillary prognathism was found to be more prevalent in boys than girls, there is no statistically significant difference between genders. The data analysis revealed increased number of patients with vertical growth pattern, both those with maxillary proghathism and those with mandibular retrognathism, but the difference was statistically insignificant. Patients with maxillary prognathism had both Class II/1 and Class II/2 equally distributed. Patients with mandibular retrognatism had more Class II/1, but essentially there was no statistically significant difference between these two groups. |
