Proffit WR, Phillips C, Dann C 4th. Who seeks surgical-orthodontic treatment?.. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1990; 5:153-160
Bailey LJ, Haltiwanger LH, Blakey GH, Proffit WR Who seeks surgical-orthodontic treatment: a current review. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg.. 2001; 16:280-292
Fowler P, Haworth J, Steenberg L Vertical segmental anterior mandibular distraction to aid closure of a severe anterior open bite associated with an accentuated reverse curve of Spee. J Orthod.. 2021; 48:444-450 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F14653125211000056
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
Björk A Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod.. 1969; 55:585-599
Linder-Aronson S Effects of adenoidectomy on dentition and nasopharynx. Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1972; 177-86
Giancotti A, Garino F, Mampieri G Use of clear aligners in open bite cases: an unexpected treatment option. J Orthod.. 2017; 44:114-125
Proffit WR, Turvey TA, Phillips C The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: an update and extension. Head Face Med. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-3-21
Bondemark L, Holm AK, Hansen K, Axelsson S, Mohlin B, Brattstrom V, Paulin G, Pietila T Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment and patient satisfaction. A systematic review. Angle Orthod.. 2007; 77:181-91 https://doi.org/10.2319/011006-16r.1
Ow A, Cheung LK Skeletal stability and complications of bilateral sagittal split osteotomies and mandibular distraction osteogenesis: an evidence-based review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2009; 67:2344-2353 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.07.003
Mobarak KA, Espeland L, Krogstad O, Lyberg T Mandibular advancement surgery in high-angle and low-angle class II patients: different long-term skeletal responses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.. 2001; 119:368-381 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.110983
This is the second 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 aetiology and management of patients presenting with increased Frankfort/maxillary mandibular planes angle and anterior lower face height, commonly described as ‘high angle’.
The vertical dimension is one of the three spatial planes used to assess orthodontic hard and soft tissue relationships. It is important to be able to assess the vertical dimension, understand the aetiology of the malocclusion and be able to manage patients with an increased Frankfort/maxillary mandibular planes angle (F/MMPA) and anterior lower face height (ALFH).
The definition of ‘high angle’ in orthodontics is an increased F/MMPA more than one standard deviation above average (FMPA >32°).1 A high angle is associated with increased vertical facial proportions, with backward growth rotations of the mandible. Other terms used to describe a high angle include hyperdivergent, dolichofacial and long or adenoid face. Although these terms all refer to similar clinical features, the assortment of interchangeable terms indicate variations in facial morphology and possible aetiological features.
The prevalence of patients with a ‘long face’ is approximately 22%, and increased vertical proportions occur predominately in the lower third of the face, rather than the middle third of the face.2,3
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: