EC Dental Science

Research Article Volume 22 Issue 6 - 2023

Cephalometric Determination of the Occlusal Plane According to the Sagittal Shift (Skeletal Class I, II and III)

Bennani Anas1*, El Mdaghri Meriem2, Falih Salma3, Lagha Yousra3 and Ousehal Lahcen4

1Professor, Head of Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental College, Hassan II University, Casablanca, Morocco
2Assistant Professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental College, Mohamed 6 University of Health Sciences, Casablanca, Morocco
3Dentist, Private Practice, Casablanca, Morocco
4Professor, Head of Department of Orthodontics, Dental College, Hassan II University, Casablanca, Morocco

*Corresponding Author: Bennani Anas, Professor, Head of Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental College, Hassan II University, Casablanca, Morocco.
Received: May 10, 2023; Published: May 26, 2023



Objective: The correct orientation of the occlusal plane is one of the most explicit criteria for an ideal prosthetic reconstruction. The aim of this work is to seek a correlation between the occlusal plane and the other craniofacial planes (Camper, Frankfort, axio-orbital, palatal and mandibular planes) from the angulations on teleradiographies of a population of Casablanca according to the different sagittal shifts (skeletal class I, II and III)

Materials and Methods: Our sample consisted of 374 patients, free of any anomaly and non-benefiting from a previous orthodontic treatment. The sample was divided into 3 groups, according to sagittal shift, after calculating their ANB: 159 skeletal class I, 163 skeletal class II and 52 skeletal class III cases.

Results: For POPM angle, a mean value of 20.4742° was found, it is 18.619° for class I cases, 22.279° for class II cases and 20.490° for class III cases. The POPP angle averages 12.9337°, it varies in 11.355° for class I cases, 14.009° for class II cases and 10.596° for class III cases. For the POPAO angle, it was found that the average value is 13.2719° for the whole sample, while for the three skeletal classes namely class I, class II and class III, it is 13.270°, 12.911°, 13.096° respectively. The OP and the camper plane make an angle of average 9.9782°, this angle is of average 13.270° for class I cases, 8.767° for class II cases and 9.798° for class III skeletal cases. The angle established between the PO and Frankfort plane is on average 8.675° in the Moroccan population, for class I it is 8.597°, while it is 8.240° for class II and 9.538° for class III.

Discussion: The comparison between the means of the different skeletal classes in our sample showed a significant difference between skeletal class I and class II, for POPC, POPM and POPP angles as well as a significant difference for POPM angle between class I and class III.

However, comparison of our study with other studies by different authors with the same objective and sampling as ours revealed a significant difference.

Conclusion: The orientation of the occlusal plane in relation to the craniofacial planes, mentioned above, according to the sagittal shift, gave us averages that allowed the practitioner to reconstruct the lost occlusion of the patient in a way close to his anterior occlusion, while taking into consideration his skeletal class, especially if it is a skeletal class II that revealed a significant difference compared to the other classes

Keywords: Cephalometric Determination; Occlusal Plane; Sagittal Shift; Skeletal Class I, II and III

  1. Kumar P., et al. “Systematic assessment of the various controversies, difficulties, and current trends in the reestablishment of the lost occlusal planes in edentulous patients”. Annales De La Recherche En Sciences Médicales Et De La Santé (2014): 3.
  2. Keith J Ferro. “The glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth Edition”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (2017): e1-e105.
  3. Sinha N., et al. “A cephalometric analysis of Class II dentate subjects to establish a formula to determine the occlusal plane in Class II edentate subjects”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society3 (2017): 226-232.
  4. Zarb G. “Treatment for edentulous patients, Boucher’s prosthodontic, 10th edition”. CV Mosby, St. Louis (1998): 296-309.
  5. Gupta R., et al. “Relationship of anatomic landmarks with occlusal plane”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 9 (2009): 142-147.
  6. Kumar P., et al. “Reliability of anatomic reference planes in establishing the occlusal plane indifferent jaw relationships: a cephalometric study”. Indian Prosthodontic Society4 (2012): 571-577.
  7. Mehwish Khan., et al. “Relationship of natural occlusal plane with different anatomical landmarks”. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association3 (2021): 863-867.
  8. Yasaki M. “Height of the occlusion rim and the interocclusal distance”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 11 (1961): 26-31.
  9. Nagle RJ and Ears VH. “Denture prosthetics 2”. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company (1962): 134.
  10. Abi-Ghosn C and Makzoumé JE. “Relationship between the Occlusal Plane corresponding to the Lateral Borders of the Tongue and Ala-tragus Line in Edentulous Patients”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice5 (2012): 590-594.
  11. Lundquist DO and Luther WW. “Occlusal plane determination”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 23 (1970): 489-498.
  12. Shigli K., et al. “Validity of soft tissue landmarks in determining the occlusal plane”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 5 (2005): 139-145.
  13. Foley PF and Latta GH. “Study of the position of the parotid papilla relative to the occlusal plane”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 53 (1985): 124.
  14. Schittly J. “Quelle position mandibulaire pour quelle occlusion en prothèse amovible partielle”. Paris, Comptes rendus CNO (1997).
  15. Santure Hebrad JP. “Occlusion, schémas occlusaux et orientation du plan d’occlusion en prothèse dentaire”. Thèse (1997).
  16. Santure Hebrad JP. “Occlusion, schémas occlusaux et orientation du plan d’occlusion en prothèse dentaire”. Thèse (1997).
  17. De Praeter J., et al. “Long-term stability of the leveling of the curve of Spee”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics3 (2002): 266-272.
  18. Genin G. “L’orientation du plan d’occlusion mandibulaire en prothèse amovible complète: de la complexité à la pratique quotidienne”. Sciences du Vivant (2012).
  19. El Aoud J., et al. “Determination of the Occlusal Plane in Complete Denture: About the Paterson Technic”. Integrative Journal of Medical Sciences 8 (2021): 488.
  20. Delaire JS and Alagnac JK. “Motarif Diagnostic des dysmorphoses dento-maxillo-faciales; apport de l’analyse architecturale informatisée Actaodontol (1994).
  21. Ricketts RM. “Cephalometric analysis and synthesis”. The Angle Orthodontist 31 (1961): 141-156.
  22. Lejoyeux J. “Prothése complete”. Paris: Maloine (1986).
  23. Rupple L. “An apparatus to determine the position of the occlusal plane in prosthetic and orthodontic cases”. Record 40 (1920): 637-639.
  24. Sinobad D. “The position of the occlusal plane in dentulous subjects with various skeletal jaw-relationships”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 15 (1988): 489-498.
  25. Lahori M., et al. “A cephalometric study on the relationship between the occlusal plane, ala tragus and camper’s lines in subjects with angles’s class1, class 2 and class 3 occlusion”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society4 (2013): 494-498.
  26. OW RKK., et al. “The relationships of upper facial proportions and the plane of occlusion to anatomic reference”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry6 (1989): 727-733.
  27. Kumar P., et al. “Reliability of anatomic reference planes in establishing the occlusal plane indifferent jaw relationships: a cephalometric study”. Indian Prosthodontic Society4 (2012): 571-577.
  28. Shergil Dk. “Evaluation complexes de la cohérence des différents plans de référence lors de la réorientation du plan occlusal dans les relations des mâchoires de classe 1 et de classe 2: une étude céphalométrique in vivo”. Rev Int de recherche en santé et sciences connexes 4.2 (2018).
  29. Seifert D., et al. Relations des plans de référence pour l’orientation du plan prothétique Acta Stomat Croat 4.4 (2000).
  30. Gandhi N., et al. “Cephalometric study of the position of ala-tragus line in relation to Frankfort horizontal plane and occlusal plane among Ludhiana population”. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences 9 (2017): 165-169.
  31. Alfidi Jamila Ait Ben Bouazza Khadija. “Etude de la relation entre le plan d’occlusion et les divers plans craniofaciaux a partir des traces céphalométriques d’une population casablancaise”. Thèse (2022).
  32. Subhas S., et al. “A cephalometric study to establish the relationship of the occlusal plane to the three different alatragal lines and the Frankfort horizontal plane in different head forms”. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery2 (2017): 73-77.

Bennani Anas., et al. "Cephalometric Determination of the Occlusal Plane According to the Sagittal Shift (Skeletal Class I, II and III)". EC Dental Science 22.6 (2023): 57-67.

ECronicon Journal

Our Services

Quick Links

Information

Creative Commons LicenseOpen Access by ECronicon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Based on a work at www.ecronicon.net