A Comparison of Cephalometric Profiles of Young Adults from Northern Thailand and the UK
The purposes of this study were to develop a cephalometric profile of Northern Thai adults, and to compare the measurements to those of Caucasian adults. Cephalograms of 70 subjects, 35 males and 35 females, were used as a study group. All samples had natural optimal occlusion and passed the active growth period. Eleven cephalometric measurements were assessed for the skeletal and dental values, both in sagittal and vertical planes. Results of the measurements were assessed statistically and evaluated in terms of means and standard deviations. Comparisons of those values between races and sexes were performed with a two-sample t-test. There were differences found between races and between genders. When the overall findings were evaluated, it could be concluded that in general, Northern Thais have a prognathic maxilla and mandible, but a similar relative prognathism when compared to Caucacian norms. An increased lower face height and bimaxillary dental protrusion were also seen in this group.
1. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 729-755.
2. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 721-735.
3. McNamara JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 449-469.
4. Shalhoub SY, Sarhan OA, Shaikh HS. Adult cephalometrics norms for Saudi Arabians with a comparison of values for Saudi and North American Caucasians. Br J Orthod 1987, 14, 273-279
5. Miura F, Inoue N, Suzuki K. Cephalometric strandrads for Japanese according to the Steiner analysis. Am J Orthod 1965; 51: 288- 295.
6. Kowalski CJ, Nasjleti CE, Walker GF. Differential diagnosis of adult male Black and White populations. Angle Orthod 1974; 44, 346-350.
7. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan, H, Murphy GA Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1987; 36: 269- 277.
8. Richardson ER. Racial differences in dimentional traits of the human face. Angle Orthod 1980; 50, 301-311.
9. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Hilgers JJ, Schulhof R. An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1972; 61 :1-28.
10. Bhatia SN, Leighton B.C. A Manual of Facial Growth: A Computer Analysis of Longitudinal Cephalometry Growth Data. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
11. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 149-151.
12. Stirrups DR. A comparison of the accuracy of cephalometric landmark location between two screen/film combinations. Angle Orthod 1989; 59: 211-242.
13. Baumrind S, Frantz RG. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 111-127.
14. Baumrind S, Frantz RG. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 505-517.
15. Chatkupt S. Cephalometric study in Northern Thai people. Research report, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, 1987.
16. Jotikasthira D. Variation in dentofacial morphology in Thai and Norwegian adults with ideal occlusion. Thesis, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Bergen, 1989.
17. Suchato W, Chaiwat J. Cephalometric evaluation of the dentofacial complex of Thai adults. J Dent Assoc Thai 1984; 34: 233-242.
18. Solow B, Sarnas KV. A comparison of the adult Swedish and Danish craniofacial morphology. Swed Dent J 1982; 15(suppl): 229-230.
19. Trenouth MJ, Davies PHJ, Johnson JS. A statistical comparison of three sets of normative data from which to derive standards for craniofacial measurement. Eur J Orthod 1985; 7: 193-200.
20. Patanaporn V. Cephalometric study of Northern Thais after maturity according to Ricketts analysis. Research report, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, 1996.