Abstract
Objective
To assess whether there are differences in skeletal maturation among subjects with horizontal, vertical, and neutral facial growth patterns.
Material and methods
The study was performed on 48 latero-lateral craniographs of patients with horizontal, 48 with vertical and 50 with neutral growth patterns aged 12 to 18 years. Eight variables from the Zagreb 82 MOD, Bracchetti and Accord analysis, were selected for measuring angular and linear parameters on latero-lateral craniographs. The assessment of skeletal maturation was done by using the CVMS method.
Results
Statistical analysis showed significant differences in skeletal maturity (p <0.001) between subjects with horizontal and vertical growth pattern and between the subjects with neutral and vertical growth pattern (p <0.05), while no significant difference was found between patients with horizontal and neutral growth pattern. In the younger group (12 – 15 years) there was a statistically significant difference (p <0.05) among subjects with horizontal and vertical growth patterns. In the older group (16 – 18 yrs) there was a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in skeletal maturity among subjects with vertical growth patterns compared with horizontal and neutral. In terms of stages of skeletal maturity, patients with a horizontal and neutral growth pattern in the younger group were on average in the fourth stage, and those with a vertical growth pattern in the third stage. In the older group, patients with a horizontal and neutral growth pattern were on average in the fifth stage of skeletal maturity and those with a vertical growth pattern in the fourth stage.
Conclusion
According to the growth pattern, patients differ in the stage of skeletal maturity.
Keywords: MeSH terms: Cephalometry, Age Determination by Skeleton, Author keywords: Vertical Growth Pattern, Horizontal Growth Pattern, Skeletal Maturation
Introduction
In orthodontics, determining biological age, in addition to knowing the chronological age of patients, is important for the diagnosis and development of a treatment plan (1). For development of a treatment plan it is very important to evaluate if the patient is near the peak of pubertal growth. It is believed that growth modification therapy of the maxilla is more effective when it starts before the peak of pubertal growth, while the approach that modifies mandibular growth should start after the peak (2).
To assess different stages of growth spurt we can use the following two methods: the hand-wrist radiographs and cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method in the lateral cephalometric radiograph. Wong et al. have validated the CVM method and they made conclusion that since cephalometric radiograph is routinely made before entering any orthodontic treatment, to prevent unnecessary radiation for additional X-rays of hand, nowadays, this method is used as a gold standard in determining pubertal growth (3). In terms of timing the right treatment and getting a better result, the knowledge of the skeletal maturation in association with craniofacial growth is also very important (4). The chronological and biological age of the patient, combined with knowledge of the type of craniofacial growth allows us to predict the right timing and outcome of orthodontic therapy; therefore, they are crucial in clinical as well as in scientific work. In the available literature there are studies which compared dental age with skeletal maturity (5, 6), but the relationship between skeletal maturation and growth pattern has not yet been clarified; therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional retrospective study was to assess whether there are differences in skeletal maturation among patients with different vertical facial growth patterns.
Material and methods
The sample included 146 pretreatment lateral cephalographs (82 females and 64 males) of patients aged 12-18 selected from the Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Centre Zagreb. Lateral cephalographs were routinely made before orthodontic treatment. More than a thousand patient files were reviewed. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb since the cephalographs were made according to diagnostic procedures. The patient’s parents signed a voluntary written informed consent. All subjects with determined craniofacial anomalies, skeletal deviations in the sagittal dimension, respiratory problems, and positive history of unfavorable habits were excluded from the study because of the possible effect on the development of the alveolar bone and dimensions of the midface.
Rtg cephalometric analysis
To assess the growth pattern, a cephalometric analysis was performed using the Dolphin 10.5 software. All variables that were used for this purpose are shown in Table 1. The norms of all values were derived from a previous study on subjects with normal occlusion from the Croatian ethnicity (7).
Table 1. Cephalometric variables used in this study.
| No. | Measured values | Name of the measure | Mean value | Type of measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Y axis | N- S - Gn | 66.5±3.5 | angular |
| 2. | basal plane angle | sp - pm: go- m | 25±5 | angular |
| 3. | articular angle | S - Ar - Go | 39.5±5 | angular |
| 4. | gonial angle | M - Go - Ar | 127.5±5 | angular |
| 6. | upper gonial angle | N - Go- Ar | 54.5± 4 | angular |
| 7. | mandibular plane angle | N-S: Go-M | 32.4±4.7 | angular |
| 8. | anterior and posterior face height ratio | S-Go: N-Me | 61±2% |
Assessment of cervical vertebral maturation index
Cervical vertebral maturation was determined on lateral cephalometric radiographs using cervical vertebrae maturation stages (CVMS) (8-11), a method modified by Baccetti et al. (12). The morphology of the bodies of the second (C2), third (C3), and fourth (C4) cervical vertebrae were analyzed. All analysis and measurement were performed by one researcher. To assess the reproducibility, 30 randomly selected lateral cephalographs were reevaluated eight weeks later by the same investigator. The results were evaluated by the Spearman-Brown formula.
Statistical analysis
Statistical calculations were made by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software for Windows software system (version PASW 18), (SPSS Inc., Chicago, SAD). The level of significance was set at p-values of <.05. To test the normality of distribution, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used. Each variable was presented by the mean, standard deviation and maximum and minimum values. For the numerical variables (degree of bone maturity, age), the following parametric tests were used: T-test, ANOVA and associated post hoc Scheffe test.
Results
Patients’ characteristics
The study involved 146 patients aged 12 - 18 years (average age 14.9 years). According to gender, there were 64 male patients (43.83%) and 82 female patients (56.17%). The distribution of patients by gender did not differ according to age (T-test, p= 0.315).
According to growth pattern, the subjects were allocated into three groups. In Group 1, there were 48 subjects with horizontal growth pattern, in Group 2, there were 48 subjects with vertical growth pattern and in Group 3, there were 50 subjects with neutral growth pattern.
Skeletal maturation and growth patterns
The mean values for skeletal maturity for subjects with different growth patterns are shown in Table 2. The obtained difference was statistically significant (ANOVA: F = 9.417; d.f. = 2; p & lt; 0.001), and the Scheffe test confirms that there was a significant difference between patients with horizontal and vertical growth patterns in the younger group and between neutral and vertical growth patterns in the older group of patients (p & lt; 0.05), while there was no significant difference in the degree of skeletal maturation between horizontal and neutral growth pattern (p & gt; 0.05) (Table 3).
Table 2. Relationship between growth patterns and skeletal maturity.
| Growth pattern | CVMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean value (M) | SD | f-ratio | p | |
| Horizontal | 48 | 4.0 | 0.97 | 9.417 | 0.000 |
| Vertical | 48 | 3.4 | 1.00 | ||
| Neutral | 50 | 4.1 | 0.95 | ||
| Total | 146 | 3.9 | 1.03 | ||
Table 3. Analysis of variance of growth patterns and stage of skeletal maturity.
| (I) | (J) | (I-J) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horizontal | vertical | .688* | .003* |
| neutral | -.098 | .882 | |
| Vertical | horizontal | -.688* | .003* |
| neutral | -.786* | .001* | |
| Scheffe post-hoc test; *p<0.05 | |||
Relationship between skeletal maturation and growth pattern in different age groups
Patients were divided into two age groups. 57.5% of them were in the first group (12 to 15 years) and 42.5% in the second group (16 to 18 years).
According to growth patterns and degree of skeletal maturity development, the distribution of the first group is shown in Figure 1 and of the second group in Figure 2.
Figure 1.
_302-307-f1.jpg)
CVMS for different growth pattern in group 12-15 years
Figure 2.
_302-307-f2.jpg)
CVMS for different growth pattern in group 16-18 years
In the age group 12-15 years, the obtain results revealed a statistically significant difference in stage of skeletal development between the subjects with horizontal and vertical growth patterns, (ANOVA; F = 4.802; P = 0.011) (Table 4).
Table 4. CVMS for different growth pattern in group 12-15 yrs, Scheffe post-hoc test.
| Scheffe post-hoc test (p<0.05) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| neutral | Horizontal | vertical | |
| neutral | .801 | .091 | |
| horizontal | .801 | .015 | |
| vertical | .091 | .015 | |
In the age group 16-18 years, statistically significant differences were found between patients with horizontal and vertical growth patterns and those with vertical and neutral growth patterns, (ANOVA; F=4.802; P=0.011) (Table 5).
Table 5. CVMS for different growth pattern in group 16-18 yrs, Scheffe post-hoc test.
| Scheffe test post-hoc test (p<0.05) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| neutral | Horizontal | vertical | |
| neutral | .580 | .000 | |
| horizontal | .580 | .003 | |
| vertical | .000 | .003 | |
Discussion
The face changes during childhood, adolescence and adulthood. The craniofacial growth is continuous, however, the growth of individual parts of the head does not occur continuously over time (13-16).
The knowledge of the growth pattern and the degree of skeletal maturity in patients is mandatory for the right orthodontic treatment, both timing and type.
The most frequent method to assess skeletal growth is to analyze the cervical vertebrae on routinely made cephalographs, known as the CVMS method (17-20). Szemraj et al. (21) have confirmed that this diagnostic approach has a high degree of correlation with the hand wrist method and it is considered reliable in clinical, as well as in scientific work. Accordingly, in this research, the CVMS method was used to determine skeletal growth.
The obtained results showed a statistically significant difference in skeletal maturation time between patients with vertical and horizontal growth patterns, thus confirming the null hypothesis. Subjects with horizontal and neutral growth patterns aged 12-15 years were on average in the fourth stage of skeletal maturity, while those with a vertical growth pattern were in the third stage of skeletal maturation. Patients in the age group 16-18 years with vertical growth pattern had mean skeletal age in the fourth stage and those with horizontal and neutral growth pattern in the fifth stage.
Gottimukkala et al. (22) have undertaken a comparison of the skeletal age between long and short face children in the South Indian Population and concluded that subjects with vertical growth patterns should be expected to reach higher levels of skeletal maturity than horizontal growers. A possible explanation for the opposite values, from the ones in this study, was a difference in methodology since they have used both hand-wrist radiographs and lateral cephalographs.
Perinetti et al. performed a study on the Italian population. Their results have shown that there is a very small correlation between different craniofacial growth and skeletal maturation, apart from patients with vertical craniofacial growth pattern in CVM stage 3. Those results are statistically significant, but clinically, they can be found only in extreme cases (4). In their research, they have used different cephalometric measurements than ones used in this study. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the growth pattern, some other factors could also influence the level of skeletal maturity, such as genetics, nutrition, socioeconomic status and ethnicity (23)). Hence, those are the factors that can explain the differences in results between this and their study.
Due to a lack of similar research the obtained results are very difficult to compare. Furthermore, research should be supplemented by a larger number of growth indicators.
Conclusions
A difference in the degree of skeletal maturity among subjects with different vertical facial growth patterns was found (p <0.001). Patients with horizontal and neutral growth patterns didn't show significant differences in skeletal maturity. Subjects with a vertical growth pattern were in a higher stage of skeletal maturity when compared to those with a horizontal and neutral growth pattern for the same chronological age.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Ortodoncija. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap; 2010.
- 2.Soegiharto BM, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Discriminatory ability of the skeletal maturation index and the cervical vertebrae maturation index in detecting peak pubertal growth in Indonesian and white subjects with receiver operating characteristics analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. August;134(2):227–37. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wong RW, Alkhal HA, Rabie AB. Use of cervical vertebral maturation to determine skeletal age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(4):484.e1–484.e6. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Perinetti G, Rosso L, Riatti R, Contardo L. Sagittal and Vertical Craniofacial Growth Pattern and Timing of Circumpubertal Skeletal Maturation: A Multiple Regression Study. BioMed Res Int. 2016;2016:1728712. 10.1155/2016/1728712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Srkoč T, Meštrović S, Anić-Milošević S, Šlaj M. Association between dental and skeletal maturation stages in Croatian subjects. Acta Clin Croat. 2015. December;54(4):445–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Felemban NH. Correlation between Cervical Vertebral Maturation Stages and Dental Maturation in a Saudi Sample. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2017. December;51(4):283–9. 10.15644/asc51/4/2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Muretić Z. Computer modification of radiographic cephalometric analysis „Zagreb 82“. Period Biol. 1993;95:137–40. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. January;107(1):58–66. 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70157-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Agresti A. Categorical Dana Analysis. 2. ed. New York: John Wiley and sons, Inc.; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dawson B, Trapp RG. Basic&Clinical Biostatistics. 3 ed. New York: The McGrawHill Companies, Inc.; 2000.
- 11.Yavuz I, Ikbal A, Baydaş B, Ceylan I. Longitudinal posteroanterior changes in transverse and vertical craniofacial structures between 10 and 14 years of age. Angle Orthod. 2004. October;74(5):624–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA, Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002. August;72(4):316–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Björk A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963;42(1):400–11. 10.1177/00220345630420014701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Meredith HV. A longitudinal study of growth in face depth during childhood. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1959;17(2):125–35. 10.1002/ajpa.1330170208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Meredith HV. Changes in form of the head and face during childhood. Growth. 1960;24:215–64. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lundström F, Leighton BC, Richardson A, Lundstrom A. A proportional analysis of some facial height and depth variables in 10 to 16 year old children. Eur J Orthod. 1998. February;20(1):35–44. 10.1093/ejo/20.1.35 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Felemban NH. Correlation between Cervical Vertebral Maturation Stages and Dental Maturation in a Saudi Sample. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2017. December;51(4):283–9. 10.15644/asc51/4/2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.O’Reilly MT, Yanniello GJ. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae—a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 1988;58(2):179–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA, Jr. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. September;118(3):335–40. 10.1067/mod.2000.107009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Grave K, Townsend G. Cervical vertebral maturation as a predictor of the adolescent growth spurt. Aust Orthod J. 2003. April;19(1):25–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Szemraj A, Wojtaszek-Słomińska A, Racka-Pilszak B. Is the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method effective enough to replace the hand-wrist maturation (HWM) method in determining skeletal maturation?-A systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2018. May;102:125–8. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gottimukkala P, Gandikota CS, Challa PL. Assessment of skeletal and dental maturation of short and long-face children of South Indian population. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2012;46(3):148–53. 10.1177/0974909820120306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Parent A-S, Teilmann G, Juul A, Niels E. Skakkebaek, Jorma Toppari, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon. The timing of normal puberty and the age limits of sexual precocity: variations around the world, secular trends, and changes after migration. Endocr Rev. 2003. October;24(5):668–93. 10.1210/er.2002-0019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]