THE MANDIBULAR RETROMOLAR SPACE IN SKELETAL CLASS I PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT VERTICAL FACIAL TYPES USING CONEBEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CBCT)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the mandibular retromolar space in skeletal class I patients with different vertical facial types using Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Subjects and methods: A case series study was conducted on 86 skeletal class I patients (aged 18-47 years). Patients were categorized into hypodivergent, normodivergent, and hyperdivergent groups based on their vertical face types. Mandibular retromolar space was measured distally at four planes (0 mm, 2 mm, 4 mm and 6 mm from the cement-enamel joint (CEJ)) along the sagittal line and molar cuspal line, respectively. Results: In the sagittal plane, at the slice 2mm from the CEJ, the largest retromolar space of the mandibular second molar was found in the hypodivergent group (7.41±2.59 mm), followed by the normodivergent group, and was smallest in the hyperdivergent group (4.79±1.87 mm). A similar trend was also observed at the 4 mm slice from the CEJ. At the plane 6mm from the CEJ, the largest retromolar space was found in the normodivergent group (8.70±1.89 mm) and the smallest in the hyperdivergent group (5.61±1.59 mm). On the occlusal plane, the mandibular second molar retromolar space at the 6mm slice from the CEJ was largest in the normodivergent group (9.88±2.43 mm) and smallest in the hyperdivergent group (6.89±3.11 mm). In the normodivergent group, patients with normally erupted third molars had a significantly larger retromolar space on the occlusal plane compared to those with impacted third molars at the 0mm, 2mm and 4 mm slices from the CEJ. Conclusion: The vertical facial pattern and the eruption pattern of the mandibular third molar were factors influencing the mandibular retromolar space. The mean mandibular retromolar space was smallest in the hyperdivergent group, larger in the normodivergent group and hypodivergent group. Hyperdivergent patients have the smallest retromolar space, so distalization in this group should be carefully considered.
Article Details
Keywords
Vertical facial types, Mandibular Retromolar space, CBCT, Skeletal class I
References
2. Zhao Z, Wang Q, Yi P, et al. Quantitative evaluation of retromolar space in adults with different vertical facial types: Angle Orthod. 2020;90(6):857-865. doi:10.2319/121219-787.1
3. Liu K, Chu G, Zhang C, Yang Y. Boundary of mandibular molar distalization in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024;27(4):515-526. doi:10.1111/ocr.12778
4. Horn AJ. Facial height index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992;102(2):180-186. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(92)70031-5
5. Hui VLZ, Xie Y, Zhang K, et al. Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(5):598-605. doi:10.2319/092921-731.1
6. Guo X, Gao Y, Zhang F, et al. Assessment of mandibular retromolar space in adults with regard to third molar eruption status. Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(2):671-680. doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04782-6
7. Hattab FN, Alhaija ESJA. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular third molar eruption space. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88(3):285-291. doi:10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70029-6