Volumetric Analysis of the Jaws in Skeletal Class I and III Patients with Different Facial Divergence Using CBCT Imaging

Abstract

Aim. The main objective was to evaluate any possible maxillary or mandibular volumetric difference between hyperdivergent skeletal Class III (CIII), normodivergent skeletal CIII, hypodivergent skeletal CIII, and normodivergent skeletal Class I (CI) patients using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Also, the secondary objective was to investigate any possible correlation between CBCT-derived lateral cephalometric variables and the mandibular and maxillary volumes (MdV and MxV, respectively). Materials and Methods. 80 CBCT images of patients between 18 and 32 years of age were taken with one CBCT imaging device (Scanora 3D®, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland). The sample consisted of four groups: 20 hypodivergent skeletal CIII (11 males and 9 females), 20 normodivergent skeletal CIII (7 males and 13 females), 20 hyperdivergent skeletal CIII (8 males and 12 females), and 20 normodivergent skeletal CI (5 males and 15 females). The volumes of both jaws and the ratio of MxV/MdV were obtained using Mimics™ 19 software (Materialise, NV, Belgium), and 2D variables were obtained from CBCT-derived lateral cephalogram using AudaxCeph™ software (Orthodontic software suite, Ljubljana, Slovenia). One-way ANOVA test and Kruskal–Wallis analysis were employed to detect any possible significant difference between the volumetric variables, whereas Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated to detect any possible relationship between the 2D variables and the volumetric measurements. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in the maxillary volume or maxillary/mandibular ratio between the four groups ( $p=0.081$ and 0.432, respectively). There was a significant difference in MdV between CIII hypodivergent (higher mean) and CIII hyperdivergent ( $p=0.039$ ). There were some correlations between the MdV and 2D variables in the four studied groups especially in the posterior facial height (S-Go) and the facial depth (N-Go). There were some weaker correlations between the MxV and some 2D variables in the CIII hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups. Conclusions. The mandibular volume of the Class III hypodivergent patient was significantly greater than that of the Class III hyperdivergent patients. Correlations between the maxillary or mandibular volumes were found with some of the 2D variables. The volume of both jaws increased when the maxillofacial complex moved toward a horizontal growth pattern.