##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Aims: In this study, cephalometric norms for Sudanese with class I normal occlusion were introduced, and the results were compared to those from other studies in various populations.

Materials and Methods: 29 cephalographs with ages ranging from 18 to 25 made up the sample. The selection criteria were met by all competitors. After that, cephalometric findings were compared to earlier findings from research among reported Arabs, as well as research among Oriental and Black races.

Results: When compared to Caucasian cephalometric norms, Sudanese showed greater mean values of the sagittal and vertical relationships. The inter-incisal angle decreased, and the upper and lower incisors were proclined in reference to their dental bases. The soft tissue variables show that the nasolabial angle was less acute and that the lips were slightly protruding in relation to Rickett's esthetic line. Black and Oriental races, as well as Arab populations possessed bimaxillary proclination and protrusion of the upper and lower incisors, whereas Caucasians had retrusive dentition.

Conclusion: Due to the small sample size, drawing a firm conclusion is challenging. Therefore, it is advised to use large sample sizes for both sexes in order to establish cephalometric norms, which will be very beneficial to not only orthodontists but also oral and maxillofacial surgeons, as well as pedodontist.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Broadbent B. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthodontist. 1931; 51(2): 93-114.
     Google Scholar
  2. Hofrath H. Bedeutung der röntgenfern und abstands aufnahme für die diagnostik der kieferanomalien. Fortschritte der Orthodontie. 1931; 1: 231. German.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  3. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationship: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Angle Orthodontist. 1949; 19(3): 145-55.
     Google Scholar
  4. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1953; 39(10): 729-55.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  5. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-Mandibular Incisor Angle (FMIA) In Orthodontic Diagnosis, Treatment Planning and Prognosis. Angle Orthodontist. 1954; 24(3): 121-69.
     Google Scholar
  6. Hamdan AM. Cephalometric norms in an Arabic population. Journal of Orthodontics. 2001; 28: 297-300.
     Google Scholar
  7. Sarhan OA. A comparative study between two randomly selected samples from which to derive standards for craniofacial measurements. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1988; 15: 251-255.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  8. Al-Jasser NM. Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial variations in normal Saudi population according to Steiner analysis. Saudi Medical Journal. 2000; 21: 746-750.
     Google Scholar
  9. Siddika A. Ricketts’ cephalometric analysis for Saudi population. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr. 2020; 20: e5364
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  10. Yen PKJ. The facial configuration in a sample of Chinese males. Angle Orthodontist. 1973; 43: 301-304.
     Google Scholar
  11. Miyajima K. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011; 110: 431-438.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  12. Bronfman CN. Cephalometric norms and esthetic profile preference for the Japanese: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20(6): 43-51.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  13. Bailey KL, Taylor RW. Mesh diagram cephalometric norms for Americans of African descent. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1993; 114: 218-223.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  14. Hashim HA. Cephalometric soft tissue profile analysis between two different ethnic groups: A comparative study. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2003; 2: 60-73.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  15. Al Zain T. Cephalometric characterization of an adult Emirati sample with Class I malocclusion. Journal of Orthodontic Science. 2012; 1(1): 11-15.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  16. Girhe V. Cephalometric norms for the north Indian population: A systematic review. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2022; 13(2): 172-179.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  17. Stedman T. Stedman’s medical dictionary. Baltimore: William & Wilkins; 1990.
     Google Scholar
  18. Viken Sassouni, A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1955; 41(10): 735-764.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  19. Harvold EP. The activator in orthodontics. St. Louis, Mo., Mosby, 1974.
     Google Scholar
  20. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1975; 67(2): 125-138.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  21. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogressive Therapy. Rocky Mountain Orthodontics. 1980.
     Google Scholar
  22. McNamara Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1984; 86: 449-469.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  23. Jarabak JR. Technique and treatment with light wire edgewise appliances. Saint Louis, the C. V. Mosby Company 1972.
     Google Scholar
  24. Saxby PJ. Dentoskeletal determinants of soft tissue morphology. Angle Orthodontist. 1985; 55(2): 147-154.
     Google Scholar
  25. Eman I Salama, Abuaffan AH. Cephalometric Hard and Soft Tissue Norms for Sudanese Adults. Orthodontic Journal of Nepal. 2015; 5(2): 28-32.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  26. Al-Jame B. Lateral cephalometric norms for adolescent Kuwaitis: Hard tissue measurements. Medical Principles and Practice. 2006; 15: 91-97.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  27. Hamdan AM. Cephalometric norms in an Arab population. Journal of Orthodontics. 2001; 28: 297-300.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  28. Ishara SE. Cephalometric comparisons of dentofacial parameters between Egyptian and North American adolescents. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1990; 97: 413-421.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  29. Cobourne MT. Handbook of Orthodontics. 2nd Edition. The orthodontic patient: Examination and Diagnosis. 2015.
     Google Scholar
  30. Abu-Tayyem HM, Alshamsi AH, Hafez S, EL-Din EM. Cephalometric norms for a sample of Emirates adults. Open Journal of Stomatology. 2011; 1: 75-83.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)