A 12-year-old male presents in my office for an orthodontic
evaluation. He has Class I malocclusion with completely blocked
out maxillary canines and moderate to severe crowding in the
lower arch. At first take, a four-bicuspid extraction treatment
plan would appear to be appropriate. However, in my practice,
I always take complete diagnostic records, including lateral,
frontal, panoramic and hand-wrist radiographs on all my patients
before committing to a particular treatment plan. These radiographs
for each patient are always sent to Rocky Mountain
Orthodontics Data Services for cephalometric tracing and analysis.
The information I receive includes a Ricketts analysis of the
lateral and frontal head films, a Ricketts forecast for dento-facial
growth and visual norms for both the lateral and frontal analyses.
Each patient's analysis I receive is specific for age, sex, gender and
race. These four variables make it possible to individualize each
patient's diagnosis and consequential treatment plan.
For this patient, the information from the cephalometric
analysis revealed a significant skeletal lingual crossbite pattern
due to both jaws. Skeletal lingual crossbite patterns do not always reveal themselves with obvious posterior dental crossbites.
It can be challenging to determine the presence of a skeletal
lingual crossbite pattern when it appears that there is a normal
transverse relationship between the upper and lower jaws without
a frontal analysis. Many patients who appear to have a
normal transverse skeletal relationship can have skeletal lingual
crossbite patterns,1 negatively affecting orthodontic treatment
outcomes. The orthodontic patients we treat are three dimensional;
the routine use of frontal analyses on orthodontic cases
adds that third dimension. This can only enhance the orthodontic
diagnosis and treatment planning process.
As this case demonstrates, skeletal lingual crossbite patterns
are not just limited to a narrow maxilla. Posterior skeletal lingual
crossbites can be the result of a wide mandible, which can be
further exasperated by future excessive lower jaw growth. This
patient's lateral analysis demonstrated a Class I skeletal relationship.
However, his growth forecast to maturity indicated significant
lower jaw growth over the next several years.
The maxillo-mandibular relationship two years after the start
of treatment in an adolescent might not be the same at maturity.
When growth is not taken into account, an orthodontic case
treated to proper balance at age 12 can become a failed result at
maturity. This is especially true in cases that are predicted to
experience a large amount of mandibular growth during their
teens. A decision was made to use rapid maxillary expansion followed
by upper and lower fixed appliances to resolve this patient's
crowding issues. The maxillary canines erupted into proper position
producing this functional and aesthetic result.
References
- Miner R, Qabandi S, Rigali P, Will L. Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analysis. Part 1: Normative data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:300-7
Author's Bio |
Dr. Bradford Edgren earned both his Doctorate of Dental Surgery, as valedictorian, and his Master of Science in Orthodontics from University
of Iowa, College of Dentistry. He is a diplomate, American Board of Orthodontics and an affiliate member of the SW Angle Society. Dr. Edgren
has presented to numerous groups on the importance of cephalometrics, transverse discrepancies and upper airway obstruction. His articles
have been published in both the AJODO and American Journal of Dentistry. Dr. Edgren currently has a private practice in Greeley, Colorado.
|
|