IADR Abstract Archives
CEPHALOMETRIC DIFERENCES in GUMMY SMILE and NON-GUMMY SMILE CHILDREN: a CASE CONTROL STUDY
Objectives: This analytical case-control study was carried out to describe and compare the vertical and sagittal cephalometric characteristics of children and adolescents with and without a gummy smile (GS).
Methods: From a population of 208 patients (5-17 years old) and after applying the selection criteria, a sample of 156 subjects were included: 37 cases (GS) and 119 controls (NGS), in a proportion of 1:3.2. A calibrated operator performed linear and angular measurements on standardized digital lateral radiographs and skeletal, dental, and soft tissue structures were analyzed.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 9.87 ± 2.46. There were differences in maxillary size and position (P <0.05), in mandibular size and rotation (P <0.05), and in anterior vertical proportions between SG and NSG patients. The logistic regression model (R2: 0.63%) showed that increased occlusal plane/palatal plane (OP/PP) and occlusal plane/mandibular plane (OP/MP) angles were risk factors for GS, with OR 2.05 (95% CI 1.30 3.22) and OR 2.32(95% CI 1.42 3.75), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in gender and habits between GS and NGS patients.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Class II skeletal malocclusion with maxillary prognathism and mandibular retrognathism, the hyperdivergent growth pattern and increased values for OP/PP for OP/PM were risk factors for GS in children and adolescents. This relationship is established from childhood and adolescence.
Methods: From a population of 208 patients (5-17 years old) and after applying the selection criteria, a sample of 156 subjects were included: 37 cases (GS) and 119 controls (NGS), in a proportion of 1:3.2. A calibrated operator performed linear and angular measurements on standardized digital lateral radiographs and skeletal, dental, and soft tissue structures were analyzed.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 9.87 ± 2.46. There were differences in maxillary size and position (P <0.05), in mandibular size and rotation (P <0.05), and in anterior vertical proportions between SG and NSG patients. The logistic regression model (R2: 0.63%) showed that increased occlusal plane/palatal plane (OP/PP) and occlusal plane/mandibular plane (OP/MP) angles were risk factors for GS, with OR 2.05 (95% CI 1.30 3.22) and OR 2.32(95% CI 1.42 3.75), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in gender and habits between GS and NGS patients.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Class II skeletal malocclusion with maxillary prognathism and mandibular retrognathism, the hyperdivergent growth pattern and increased values for OP/PP for OP/PM were risk factors for GS in children and adolescents. This relationship is established from childhood and adolescence.