Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis
The real difficulty behind the treatment of open bite is the easy relapse, for it has a multifactorial nature. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of two differential ways in the diagnosis of the open bites, looking out for the causative factors, aiding in more specific treatme...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Arabic |
| Published: |
University of Mosul, College of Dentistry
2011-04-01
|
| Series: | Al-Rafidain Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_164445_f2e1b0d03a3a9b4fae69a41ba7feb90b.html |
| _version_ | 1818157894827245568 |
|---|---|
| author | Anfal A Al–Ani |
| author_facet | Anfal A Al–Ani |
| author_sort | Anfal A Al–Ani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The real difficulty behind the treatment of open bite is the
easy relapse, for it has a multifactorial nature. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of two differential ways in the diagnosis of the open bites, looking out for the causative factors, aiding in more specific treatment plan and less relapse. Materials and Methods: A sample of 53 anterior open bite cases, all in the post–pubertal and early adulthood period (17–25 years), was assessed twice, clinically and cephalometrically. Due to clinical assessments, the whole sample was grouped as “Morphogenetic” and “Functional” groups. The same sample was also cephalometrically assessed and grouped as “Skeletal” and “Dento–alveolar” using mandibular plane angle, suspected that the morphogenetic group clinically matches the cephalometrically assessed skeletal group in number; also the functional group clinically matches the cephalometrically assessed Dento–alveolar group
in number. Student’s t–test indicated a weak agreement
between clinical judgment and cephalometric evaluation (p < 0.001). Results: Unexpectedly, the sample which assessed as skeletal hyper–divergent cephalometrically, half of it in fact was classified as functional cases clinically. This misdiagnosis may lead to inadequate treatment plan, in which relapse should be highly expected. Conclusions: These findings highlighted that, it is not enough to depend on “cephalometric evaluation” alone to design the treatment plan for open bite cases. Clinical evaluation is also important to point out the real causative factors for designing an adequate treatment plan (i.e., rehabilitation of the soft tissue bad habits, when needed) to reduce the prevalence of relapse. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T15:21:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1821f03d86e84005aae1f4851f9b357b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1812-1217 1998-0345 |
| language | Arabic |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T15:21:27Z |
| publishDate | 2011-04-01 |
| publisher | University of Mosul, College of Dentistry |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Al-Rafidain Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-1821f03d86e84005aae1f4851f9b357b2022-12-22T01:00:22ZaraUniversity of Mosul, College of DentistryAl-Rafidain Dental Journal1812-12171998-03452011-04-0111313614310.33899/rden.2011.164445Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosisAnfal A Al–AniThe real difficulty behind the treatment of open bite is the easy relapse, for it has a multifactorial nature. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the reliability of two differential ways in the diagnosis of the open bites, looking out for the causative factors, aiding in more specific treatment plan and less relapse. Materials and Methods: A sample of 53 anterior open bite cases, all in the post–pubertal and early adulthood period (17–25 years), was assessed twice, clinically and cephalometrically. Due to clinical assessments, the whole sample was grouped as “Morphogenetic” and “Functional” groups. The same sample was also cephalometrically assessed and grouped as “Skeletal” and “Dento–alveolar” using mandibular plane angle, suspected that the morphogenetic group clinically matches the cephalometrically assessed skeletal group in number; also the functional group clinically matches the cephalometrically assessed Dento–alveolar group in number. Student’s t–test indicated a weak agreement between clinical judgment and cephalometric evaluation (p < 0.001). Results: Unexpectedly, the sample which assessed as skeletal hyper–divergent cephalometrically, half of it in fact was classified as functional cases clinically. This misdiagnosis may lead to inadequate treatment plan, in which relapse should be highly expected. Conclusions: These findings highlighted that, it is not enough to depend on “cephalometric evaluation” alone to design the treatment plan for open bite cases. Clinical evaluation is also important to point out the real causative factors for designing an adequate treatment plan (i.e., rehabilitation of the soft tissue bad habits, when needed) to reduce the prevalence of relapse.https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_164445_f2e1b0d03a3a9b4fae69a41ba7feb90b.htmldifferential diagnosis of open biteopen bite causative factors |
| spellingShingle | Anfal A Al–Ani Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis Al-Rafidain Dental Journal differential diagnosis of open bite open bite causative factors |
| title | Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis |
| title_full | Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis |
| title_fullStr | Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis |
| title_short | Anterior open bite :causative factors and diagnosis |
| title_sort | anterior open bite causative factors and diagnosis |
| topic | differential diagnosis of open bite open bite causative factors |
| url | https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_164445_f2e1b0d03a3a9b4fae69a41ba7feb90b.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anfalaalani anterioropenbitecausativefactorsanddiagnosis |