Araştırma Makalesi

DOI :10.26650/eor.202511501479 IUP :10.26650/eor.202511501479 Tam Metin (PDF)

Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?

Merve Gonca, Büşra Beşer Gül, Zübeyde Kantemur

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Sınıf 1, 2 ve 3 iskeletsel paterne sahip bireylerde Frankfort horizontal (FH), sella-nasion horizontal (SN-h), optik ve orbito-oksipital düzlemlerin gerçek yatay çizgiye (TrH) göre varyasyonlarını değerlendirerek güvenilirliklerini incelemekti.

Gereç ve Yöntem: ANB açısına göre Sınıf 1, 2 ve 3 olarak sınıflandırılmış her gruptan 27’şer olmak üzere toplam 81 hastanın tedavi öncesi lateral sefalometrik radyografileri (LSR) doğal baş postüründe (NBP) alındı. NBP lazer terazi kullanılarak gerçek dikey düzlem (GDD) ile oluşturuldu. GYD ise bu GDD’ ye dik olarak elde edildi. Anatomik referans düzlemlerinin eğimleri GYD ile karşılaştırıldı.

Bulgular: Orbito-oksipital ve FH düzlemleri, sırasıyla -0.55 ± 3.26 ve -0.60 ± 3.67 ortalama değerleriyle TrH'ye en yakın düzlemler olarak belirlendi. SN-h için ortalama değer 3.33 ± 4.40 iken, optik düzlem için 4.46 ± 4.58 olarak ölçüldü. Tüm anatomik düzlemler için geniş bir aralık gözlendi: FH düzlemi için -9.03° to 8.22°, orbito-oksipital düzlem için - 8.79° to 6.49°, SN-h için -9.87° to 13.16° ve optik düzlem için -4.21° to 16.43°. İskeletsel paternlerle ilişkili olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (orbito-oksipital düzlem; p=0.05, FH düzlemi: p=0.115, SN-h; p=0.156, optik düzlem; p=0.063). Cinsiyet açısından, yalnızca Sınıf 1 kadınlarda optik düzlemde anlamlı bir fark bulundu (p=0.024).

Sonuç: FH ve orbito-oksipital düzlemler GYD ile birebir örtüşmemekle birlikte, GYD'ye en yakın referans düzlemler olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Referans düzlemlerindeki varyasyonlar tanı ve tedavi süreçlerini etkileyebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ortodonti, sefalometri, doğal baş postürü, intrakraniyal düzlem, gerçek yatay, lazer terazi

DOI :10.26650/eor.202511501479 IUP :10.26650/eor.202511501479 Tam Metin (PDF)

Which intracranial plane can be used instead of the true horizontal plane?

Merve Gonca, Büşra Beşer Gül, Zübeyde Kantemur

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the Frankfort horizontal (FH), sella-nasion horizontal (SN-h), optic, and orbitooccipital planes by assessing their variabilities relative to a true horizontal line (TrH) in Class 1, 2, and 3 patients.

Materials and Methods: Eighty-one pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) (27 each from Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 based on ANB (°) were taken in the natural head position (NHP). NHP was created using a laser level creating the true vertical line and the TrH perpendicular to the true vertical. The inclinations of the anatomic reference planes were compared with the TrH.

Results: The orbitooccipital and FH planes were closest to the TrH, with mean values of -0.55 ± 3.26 and -0.60 ± 3.67, respectively. The mean value for the SN-h was 3.33 ± 4.40, whereas the mean value for the optic plane was 4.46 ± 4.58. The ranges were high for all anatomic planes: -9.03° to 8.22° for the FH plane, -8.79° to 6.49° for the orbitooccipital plane, -9.87° to 13.16° for the SN-h, and -4.21° to 16.43° for the optic plane. No significant differences were found in relation to skeletal patterns (orbitooccipital plane; p=0.05, FH plane: p=0.115, SN-h; p=0.156, optic plane; p=0.063, respectively). Regarding sex, there was a significant difference in the optic plane in only Class 1 females (p=0.024).

Conclusion: The FH and orbitooccipital planes are not the same TrH, but they are the closest reference planes. Variations in reference planes affect diagnosis and therapy.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Orthodontics, cephalometry, natural head posture, intracranial plane, true horizontal, laser level

Referanslar

1. Durao AR, Alqerban A, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Influence of lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 2015;85:206-10. google scholar
2. Giannopoulou MA, Kondylidou-Sidira AC, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Are orthodontic landmarks and variables in digital cephalometric radiography taken in fixed and natural head positions reliable? Int Orthod 2020;18:54-68. google scholar
3. Huh YJ, Huh KH, Kim HK, Nam SE, Song HY, Lee JH, Park YS. Constancy of the angle between the Frankfort horizontal plane and the sella-nasion line: A nine-year longitudinal study. Angle Orthod 2014;84:286-91. google scholar
4. Foster TD, Howat AP, Naish PJ. Variation in cephalometric reference lines. Br J Orthod 1981;8:183-7. google scholar
5. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978;36:269-77. google scholar
6. Sassouni V. A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. American Journal of Orthodontics 1955;41:735-64. google scholar
7. Park JA, Ha TJ, Lee JS, Song WC, Koh KS. Use of the orbito-occipital line as an alternative to the frankfort line. Anat Cell Biol 2020;53:21-6. google scholar
8. Zebeib AM, Naini FB. Variability of the inclination of anatomic horizontal reference planes of the craniofacial complex in relation to the true horizontal line in orthognathic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:740-7. google scholar
9. Meiyappan N, Tamizharasi S, Senthilkumar KP, Janardhanan K. Natural head position: An overview. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7:S424-7. google scholar
10. World Medical A. World medical association declaration of helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79:373-4. google scholar
11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175-91. google scholar
12. Molhave A. A biostatic investigation. The standing posture of man theoretically and statometrically illustrated. Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica 1960;29:291-300. google scholar
13. Solow B, Tallgren A. Natural head position in standing subjects. Acta odontologica Scandinavica 1971;29:591-607. google scholar
14. Chen CM, Lai S, Tseng YC, Lee KT. Simple technique to achieve a natural head position for cephalography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:677-8. google scholar
15. Demetrio MS, Marliere DAA, Barbosa SM, Pereira RA, da Silveira HM. Different modalities to record and transfer natural head position to virtual planning in orthognathic surgery: Case reports of asymmetric patients. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2021;20:443-54. google scholar
16. Raju NS, Prasad KG, Jayade VP. A modified approach for obtaining cephalograms in the natural head position. J Orthod 2001;28:25-8. google scholar
17. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-63. google scholar
18. Moorrees CF. Natural head position--a revival. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105:512-3. google scholar
19. Bister D, Edler RJ, Tom BD, Prevost AT. Natural head posture--considerations of reproducibility. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:457-70. google scholar
20. Lundström A, Forsberg CM, Westergren H, Lundström F. A comparison between estimated and registered natural head posture. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:59-64. google scholar
21. Sonnesen L, Bakke M, Solow B. Temporomandibular disorders in relation to craniofacial dimensions, head posture and bite force in children selected for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:179-92. google scholar
22. Minervini G, Franco R, Marrapodi MM, Crimi S, Badnjevic A, Cervino G, Bianchi A, Cicciu M. Correlation between temporomandibular disorders (tmd) and posture evaluated trough the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (dc/tmd): A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2023;12. google scholar
23. Saddu SC, Dyasanoor S, Valappila NJ, Ravi BV. The evaluation of head and craniocervical posture among patients with and without temporomandibular joint disorders- a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC55-8. google scholar
24. Ekici Ö, Camcı H. Relationship of temporomandibular joint disorders with cervical posture and hyoid bone position. Cranio: the journal of craniomandibular practice 2024;42:132-41. google scholar
25. Tallgren A, Solow B. Hyoid bone position, facial morphology and head posture in adults. Eur J Orthod 1987;9:1-8. google scholar
26. Woodside DG, Linder-Aronson S. The channelization of upper and lower anterior face heights compared to population standard in males between ages 6 to 20 years. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:25-40. google scholar
27. Willford CH, Kisner C, Glenn TM, Sachs L. The interaction of wearing multifocal lenses with head posture and pain. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy 1996;23:194-9. google scholar
28. Murphy KE, Preston CB, Evans WG. The development of instrumentation for the dynamic measurement of changing head posture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:520-6. google scholar
29. Usumez S, Orhan M. Inclinometer method for recording and transferring natural head position in cephalometrics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:664-70. google scholar
30. Usumez S, Orhan M. Reproducibility of natural head position measured with an inclinometer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:451-4. google scholar
31. Schatz EC, Xia JJ, Gateno J, English JD, Teichgraeber JF, Garrett FA. Development of a technique for recording and transferring natural head position in 3 dimensions. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:1452-5. google scholar
32. Benson PE, Richmond S. A critical appraisal of measurement of the soft tissue outline using photographs and video. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:397-409. google scholar
33. Tsang KH, Cooke MS. Comparison of cephalometric analysis using a non-radiographic sonic digitizer (digigraph workstation) with conventional radiography. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:1-13. google scholar
34. Madsen DP, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC. Craniofacial reference plane variation and natural head position. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:532-40. google scholar
35. Shetty D, Bagga DK, Goyal S, Sharma P. A cephalometric study of various horizontal reference planes in natural head position. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 2013;47:143-7. google scholar
36. Dvortsin DP, Ye Q, Pruim GJ, Dijkstra PU, Ren Y. Reliability of the integrated radiograph-photograph method to obtain natural head position in cephalometric diagnosis. Angle Orthod 2011;81:889-94. google scholar
37. Raju DS, Naidu DL. Reliability and reproducibility of natural head position: A cephalometric study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 2012;46:340-7. google scholar
38. Suzuki H, Suzuki SS, Garcez AS, Carvalhaes JM, Fujii DN, Lima-Arsati YB. Reliability of a centroid method to estimate head position in cephalometric diagnosis. RGO - Revista Gaucha de Odontologia 2020;68. google scholar
39. Weber DW, Fallis DW, Packer MD. Three-dimensional reproducibility of natural head position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:738-44. google scholar
40. Valai Kasim SA, Mustafa Shariff MM, Danish S, Valai Kasim NA. Occipital spur: An incidental finding on a diagnostic cone-beam computed tomography - a case report. Anatomy 2022;22:189-92. google scholar
41. Devi SS, Dinesh S, Sivakumar A, Nivethigaa B, Alshehri A, Awadh W, Alam MK, Bhandi S, Raj AT, Patil S. Reliability of Frankfort horizontal plane with true horizontal plane in cephalometric measurements. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022;23:601-5. google scholar
42. Lundstrom F, Lundstrom A. Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:244-7. google scholar
43. Saood M, Asim M, Mushtaq N, Khan A, Tajik I. Differences in inclination of craniofacial reference planes to true horizontal line-a cross-sectional study. Journal of Khyber College of Dentistry 2018;8:53-6. google scholar
44. Marcotte MR. Head posture and dentofacial proportions. Angle Orthod 1981;51:208-13. google scholar
45. Nanda M, Singla A, Negi A, Jaj H, Mahajan VJJoIOS. The association between maxillomandibular sagittal relationship and pharyngeal airway passage dimensions. 2012;46:48-52. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın

DIŞA AKTAR

APA

Gonca, M., Beşer Gül, B., & Kantemur, Z. (2019). Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?. European Oral Research, 0(0), -. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

AMA

Gonca M, Beşer Gül B, Kantemur Z. Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?. European Oral Research. 2019;0(0):-. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

ABNT

Gonca, M.; Beşer Gül, B.; Kantemur, Z. Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?. European Oral Research, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 0, p. -, 2019.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Gonca, Merve, and Büşra Beşer Gül and Zübeyde Kantemur. 2019. “Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?.” European Oral Research 0, no. 0: -. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

Chicago: Humanities Style

Gonca, Merve, and Büşra Beşer Gül and Zübeyde Kantemur. “Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?.” European Oral Research 0, no. 0 (Jun. 2025): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

Harvard: Australian Style

Gonca, M & Beşer Gül, B & Kantemur, Z 2019, 'Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?', European Oral Research, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. -, viewed 26 Jun. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Gonca, M. and Beşer Gül, B. and Kantemur, Z. (2019) ‘Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?’, European Oral Research, 0(0), pp. -. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479 (26 Jun. 2025).

MLA

Gonca, Merve, and Büşra Beşer Gül and Zübeyde Kantemur. “Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?.” European Oral Research, vol. 0, no. 0, 2019, pp. -. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

Vancouver

Gonca M, Beşer Gül B, Kantemur Z. Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?. European Oral Research [Internet]. 26 Jun. 2025 [cited 26 Jun. 2025];0(0):-. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479 doi: 10.26650/eor.202511501479

ISNAD

Gonca, Merve - Beşer Gül, Büşra - Kantemur, Zübeyde. “Gerçek yatay düzlem yerine hangi intrakraniyal düzlem kullanılabilir?”. European Oral Research 0/0 (Jun. 2025): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.202511501479

ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ

Gönderim	14.06.2024
Kabul	16.12.2024
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma	26.03.2025

LİSANS

Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

European Oral Research