Cephalometric Comparison of Skeletal and Dental Characteristics between Typical Arab and Chinese Adults

Ali FR Rabah; Zacaria Haj Kheder Mulla Issa; Firas Haj Kheder Mulla Issa; Li Hu; Ali FR Rabah; Zacaria Haj Kheder Mulla Issa; Firas Haj Kheder Mulla Issa; Li Hu

doi:10.3934/medsci.2017.4.413

AIMS Medical Science

2017, Volume 4, Issue 4: 413-425. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2017.4.413

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Cephalometric Comparison of Skeletal and Dental Characteristics between Typical Arab and Chinese Adults

Department of Orthodontic, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China

Received: 17 March 2017 Accepted: 25 May 2017 Published: 23 October 2017

The purpose of this study was to determine the cephalometric norms of typical Arab young adults with class I molar relationship and well-balanced face and to compare these norms with those derived from matched Chinese subjects. Lateral cephalometric of 71 Arab adults (37 males age 20–26) (female age 20–26) were compared with 76 Chinese young adults (42 male age 20–26) (34 female 20–26).Each lateral cephalogram were traced and digitized using cephalometric software program according to Steiner analysis. Advanced maxilla and protruded mandible observed in Chinese sample compared with the Arab sample showed greater mean and standard deviation in SNA, SNB and ANB angles (p < 0.001). More proclination in upper and lower incisor teeth according to (U1/NA, L1/NA) angles observed in the Chinese sample, on the other hand, the mean value of MP/SN was higher in Arabs than that in Chinese (p < 0.001) showing more vertical growth and increased lower facial height. Also greater horizontal growth was observed in Arabs according to average value of SN/OP angle when compared to the Chinese sample (p < 0.001). There are some fundamental ethnic differences in the craniofacial and skeletal measurements between Arabs and Chinese young adult. Theses variations support the idea that a single standard in facial aesthetics should not be applied and used to all racial and ethnic groups. The results of this study showed that the Chinese’s Maxilla and Mandible were more protruded than Arabs, while Arabs had a higher angle of both the occlusal and mandibular planes.
- cephalometric,
- Steiner analysis,
- protruded jaws,
- skeletal characteristics,
- ethnic difference
Citation: Ali FR Rabah, Zacaria Haj Kheder Mulla Issa, Firas Haj Kheder Mulla Issa, Li Hu. Cephalometric Comparison of Skeletal and Dental Characteristics between Typical Arab and Chinese Adults[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2017, 4(4): 413-425. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2017.4.413

Related Papers:

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the cephalometric norms of typical Arab young adults with class I molar relationship and well-balanced face and to compare these norms with those derived from matched Chinese subjects. Lateral cephalometric of 71 Arab adults (37 males age 20–26) (female age 20–26) were compared with 76 Chinese young adults (42 male age 20–26) (34 female 20–26).Each lateral cephalogram were traced and digitized using cephalometric software program according to Steiner analysis. Advanced maxilla and protruded mandible observed in Chinese sample compared with the Arab sample showed greater mean and standard deviation in SNA, SNB and ANB angles (p < 0.001). More proclination in upper and lower incisor teeth according to (U1/NA, L1/NA) angles observed in the Chinese sample, on the other hand, the mean value of MP/SN was higher in Arabs than that in Chinese (p < 0.001) showing more vertical growth and increased lower facial height. Also greater horizontal growth was observed in Arabs according to average value of SN/OP angle when compared to the Chinese sample (p < 0.001). There are some fundamental ethnic differences in the craniofacial and skeletal measurements between Arabs and Chinese young adult. Theses variations support the idea that a single standard in facial aesthetics should not be applied and used to all racial and ethnic groups. The results of this study showed that the Chinese’s Maxilla and Mandible were more protruded than Arabs, while Arabs had a higher angle of both the occlusal and mandibular planes.

References

[1]	Broadbent BH (1931) A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1: 45-66.
[2]	Steiner CC (1959) Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 29: 8-29.
[3]	Steiner CC (1960) The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 46: 721-735. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7
[4]	Servoss JM (1971) Derivation of acceptable arrangements in the Steiner analysis. Angle Orthod 41: 146-149.
[5]	Burris BG, Harris EF (2007) Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod 70: 297-302.
[6]	Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A (2004) Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125: 366-372. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.04.004
[7]	Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA (2002) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusion and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 72: 72-80.
[8]	Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, et al. (2007) Comparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian adults in antero-posterior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod 29: 493-499. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm059
[9]	Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T, et al. (1996) Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110: 431-438. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70047-1
[10]	Hamdan AM, Rock WP (2001) Cephalometric norms in an Arabic population. J Orthod 28: 297-300. doi: 10.1093/ortho/28.4.297
[11]	Hassan AH (2006) Cephalometric norms for Saudi adults living in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Angle Orthod 76: 109-113.
[12]	Uysal T, Yagci A, Basciftci FA, et al. (2009) Standards of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning in Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 31: 449-456. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn123
[13]	Baca-Garcia A, Bravo M, Pilar B (2004) Malocclusions and orthodontic treatment needs in a group of Spanish adolescents using the Dental Aesthetic Index. FDI World Dental Press, 54: 138-142.
[14]	Zeng ZS, Zheng XD, Zhu YL, et al. (2007). Population genetic data of 15 STR loci in Han population of Henan province (central China). Legal Med 9: 30-32. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2006.08.002
[15]	Mohammad HA, Hassan A, Hussain SF (2011) Cephalometric evaluation for Malaysian Malay by Steiner analysis. Scientific Research and Essays 6: 627-634.
[16]	AlBarakati SF, Baidas LF (2010) Orthognathic surgical norms for a sample of Saudi adults: Hard tissue measurements. Saudi Dental J 22: 133-139. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2010.04.007
[17]	AlBarakati SF, Talic NF (2007) Cephalometric norms for Saudi sample using McNamara analysis. Saudi Dent J 19: 139-145.
[18]	Al-Jasser NM (2005) Cephalometric Evaluation for Saudi Population Using the Downs and Steiner Analysise. J Contemp Dent Pract 2: 52-63.
[19]	Al-Khateeba SN, Abu Alhaijab ESJ (2006) Tooth Size Discrepancies and Arch Parameters among Different Malocclusions in a Jordanian Sample. Angle Orthod 76: 459-465.
[20]	Gu Y, McNamara JA, Sigler LM et al. (2011) Comparison of craniofacial characteristics of typical Chinese and Caucasian young adults. Eur J Orthod 33: 205-211. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq054
[21]	Yen PK (1973) The facial configuration in a sample of Chinese boys. Angle Orthod 43: 301–304.
[22]	Lin WL (1985) A cephalometric appraisal of Chinese adults having normal occlusion and excellent face types. J Osaka Dent Univ 19: 1-32.
[23]	Cheng FG (1986) A cephalometric study of the Chinese in profile. Aust Orthod J 9: 285.
[24]	Cooke MS, Wei SH (1988) Cephalometric standards for the southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod 10: 264-272. doi: 10.1093/ejo/10.1.264
[25]	Lew KK (1992) Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with aesthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50: 1184-1189. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(92)90151-O
[26]	Lew KK (1994) Cephalometric ideals in Chinese, Malay and Indian ethnic groups. Asian J Aesthet Dent 2: 35-38.
[27]	Moate SJ, Darendeliler MA (2002) Cephalometric norms for the Chinese: a compilation of existing data. Aust Orthod J 18: 19-26.
[28]	Yeong P, Huggare J (2004) Morphology of Singapore Chinese. Eur J Orthod 26: 605–612. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.6.605
[29]	Wu J, Hägg U, Rabie ABM (2007) Chinese norms of McNamara's cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 77: 12-20. doi: 10.2319/021606-62R.1
[30]	Munandar S, Snow MD (1995) Cephalometric analysis of Deutero-Malay Indonesians. Aust Dental J 40: 381-388. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1995.tb04837.x
[31]	Moldez MA, Sato K, Sugawara J, Mitani H (2006) Linear and angular filipino cephalometric norms according to age and sex. Angle Orthod 76: 800-805.
[32]	Ricketts RM (1968) Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod Dentofac 54: 272-289. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9416(68)90278-9
[33]	Riolo ML (1974) An atlas of craniofacial growth: cephalometric standards from the University School Growth Study, the University of Michigan. Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan.
[34]	Rani MS, Faituri H El (2009) Comparison of cephalometric norms of Libyans with five other ethnic groups. J Pierre Fauchard Acad 23: 45-50. doi: 10.1016/S0970-2199(09)32001-9
[35]	Lahlou K, Bahoum A, Makhoukhi MB, et al. (2009) Comparison of dentoalveolar protrusion values in Moroccans and other populations. Eur J Orthodont 32: 430-434.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)