Björk A, Skieller V Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983; 5:1-46 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/5.1.1
Leslie LR, Southard TE, Southard KA Prediction of mandibular growth rotation: assessment of the Skieller, Björk and Linde-Hansen method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114:659-667 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70198-2
Hunt NP, Cunningham SJ The influence of orthognathic surgery on occlusal force in patients with vertical facial deformities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 26:87-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80633-2
Hunt N, Shah R, Sinanan A, Lewis M Northcroft Memorial Lecture 2005. Muscling in on malocclusions: Current concepts on the role of muscles in the aetiology and treatment of malocclusion. J Orthod. 2006; 33:187-197 https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021660
Naini FB, Gill DS, Sharma A, Tredwin C The Aetiology, Diagnosis and Management of Deep Overbite. Dent Update. 2006; 33(6):334-336 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2006.33.6.326
Ng J, Major PW, Heo G, Flores-Mir C True incisor intrusion attained during orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128:212-219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.025
Burstone CJ The mechanics of the segmented arch techniques. Angle Orthod. 1966; 36:99-120
Almuzian M, Alharbi F, Lai-King Chung L, McIntyre GT Transpalatal, Nance and lingual arch appliances: Clinical tips and applications. Orthod Update. 2015; 8:92-100 https://doi.org/10.12968/ortu.2015.8.3.92
Naish HJ, Dunbar C, Atack NE The control of unwanted tooth movement - an overview of orthodontic anchorage. Orthod Update. 2015; 8:42-54 https://doi.org/10.12968/ortu.2015.8.2.42
Cousley R The Orthodontic Mini-implant Clinical Handbook. Wiley-Blackwell. 2013;
Motoyoshi M, Matsuoka M, Shimizu N Application of orthodontic mini-implants in adolescents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 36:695-699 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2007.03.009
Deguchi T, Murakam T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. AJODO. 2008; 133:654-660
Khosravi R, Cohanim B, Hujoel P Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151:691-699
Blundell H, Weir T, Kerr B Predicatability of overbite control with the Invisalign appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021; 160:725-731
Ireland AJ, Songra G, Clover M Effect of gender and Frankfort mandibular plane angle on orthodontic space closure: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2016; 19(2):74-82
Beddis HP, Durey K, Alhilou A, Chan MFWY The restorative management of the deep overbite. Br Dent J. 2014; 217(9):509-515
Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub4.
Huang G, Bates S, Ehlert A, Whiting D Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review. J World Fed Orthod. 2012; 1:e89-e86
Skeletal discrepancies. Part 1: assessment, aetiology, and management of low angle cases Jenifer L Jopson Peter Fowler Dental Update 2024 16:3, 707-709.
This is the first article in a three-part series considering skeletal discrepancies in the vertical and transverse dimensions. Discrepancies in the vertical dimension are a relatively common finding, presenting challenges for the orthodontist, in terms of treatment planning, management and relapse.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: This article aims to increase awareness of the assessment, aetiology and management of patients presenting with a reduced Frankfort/maxillary mandibular planes angle and reduced anterior lower face height commonly described as ‘low angle’.
Article
Diagnosing discrepancies in the vertical dimension is vital to understanding how skeletal, dental and soft tissue factors contribute to the development of a malocclusion. This article provides an overview of the assessment of the vertical dimension and discusses the aetiology and management of patients presenting with a reduced Frankfort/maxillary mandibular planes angle (F/MMPA) and anterior lower face height (ALFH).
The definition of ‘low angle’ in orthodontics is a decreased FMPA more than one standard deviation below the average of 27° (such as an FMPA <22°).
A low angle is associated with decreased vertical facial proportions and may be associated with a forward growth rotation of the mandible. Other terms used to describe a low angle include hypodivergent, brachyfacial and short face.
There is currently limited evidence available regarding the prevalence of patients with a ‘short face’.
During a frontal examination, the face height can be divided into thirds, with each third being roughly equal in length (Figure 1). The upper third is measured from trichion to glabella. The middle third, usually described as the anterior upper face height (AUFH), is measured from glabella to columella. The ALFH is measured from columella to soft tissue menton. The AUFH and ALFH may be equal, increased or decreased with respect to each other.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
