Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
58
1mm-deviation was accepted as normal. total number of expansion and asymmetric expansion cases
Using the method of Gerlach, the ratio between the were higher than the number of compression cases, the latter
anterior segment (the sum of the mesiodistal maxillary and being mostly asymmetric too. For the mandible, normal
mandibular ratios) and the chords of lateral segments ratios were established for an almost equal number of
(canine, premolar and first molar) were assessed. As stated premolar and molar segments (51.1% : 42.2%, respectively).
by the author, a 3%-deviation was accepted as normal. The difference between the number of mandibular
According to the method of Tonn, the ratio of 1.35 compression and expansion cases was insignificant, with a
could be accepted as an average norm. slight prevalence of compression cases. The results showed
Following the method of Martin-Saller, 6 palatal and that compression was more frequently observed in mandible
8 cephalic-facial dimensions were measured and 2 palatal while expansion – in maxilla. In metric examinations after
and 4 cephalic-facial indices (a cephalic index, a Korkhaus, a difference by gender was established: the
morphological facial index, a morphological upper-facial expansion was predominant in males and compression – in
index and a cheek-bone-jaw index) were calculated. females.
The sagittal measurements after Korkhaus showed
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION that for the maxilla, normal values were assessed in 71.2%,
The performed complex metric examinations showed retrusion in 20% and protrusion in 8.8% of the cases. For
that the method of Gerlach had the highest value for a normal the mandible, normal values were found in 75.6%, retrusion
relation. In our sample of 60 individuals, the anterior in 13.3% and protrusion in 11.1% of the cases.
segment-lateral segments ratio was within the normal range The anthropometric examinations showed that
in 75% of the patients. A lower value of anterior segment concerning palatal indices, the examined palates were most
deviations was detected in 20.5% and a higher value – in frequently brachystaphylic (85.6%) and mesostaphylic
4.5% of the patients. These results confirmed the regular (14.4%), in conformity with the results for the Bulgarian
shape of the dental rows and the symmetry of their population observed by Yordanov (2). As for facial indices,
segments. our sample presented mean values close to the established
More expressed deviations from the accepted norm for the Bulgarian population (3). According to the cephalic
were found as compared to Korkhaus’ method, which is a index, the subjects were mesocephalic and brachycephalic;
basic diagnostic method in orthodontics (table 1). For the according to the morphological facial index, most frequent
maxillary premolar region, no deviations were found in were the mesoprosopic and europrosopic characteristics;
53.3% of the cases, while for the maxillary molar region, and according to the cheek-bone- jaw index, the subjects
normal ratios and asymmetric expansion were established were of average and short facial type.
in an equal number of cases - 31.1%. For the maxilla, the
Table 1
59
overall asymmetry of the human body.
5. The obtained results and the predominance of
certain metric deviations showed that the differentiation of
a “normal group” including children with normal occlusion-
articulation relations is justifiable from a clinical point of
view.
REFERENCES:
1. Ãåøåâà, Í. Ã., Á. Ñ. Íèêîëîâ è Âðúçêà ìåæäó ðàçìåðèòå íà ãëàâàòà è ãèí è ñîàâò. Äèàãíîñòèêà è ôóíêöèî-
Ë. Äåêîâà. Îðòîäîíòèÿ. Ñ., ÌÔ, 1978, íåáöåòî ïðè ÷îâåêà. Ñòîìàòîëîãèÿ íàëüíîå ëå÷åíèå çóáî÷åëþñòíî-ëèöå-
215 ñ. (Ñ.), 1989, ¹ 2. âûõ àíîìàëèè. Ìîñêâà, “Ìåäèöèíà”,
2. Éîðäàíîâ, É. Àíàòîìè÷åñêà è 4. Êðóìîâà, Â. Êëèíèêî-ãåíåòè÷íè 1987.
àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêà õàðàêòåðèñòèêà íà ïðîó÷âàíèÿ ïðè äåöà ñ öåïêè â 6. Gerlach, H. G. Beziehungen
òâúðäîòî íåáöå ó ÷îâåêà. Äèñåðòàöèÿ. ëèöåâî-÷åëþñòíàòà îáëàñò. Äèñåð- innerhalb der Gebiss-Segmente. Fortsch.
Ñ., 1972, 296 ñ. òàöèÿ. Ñ., 1987, 237 ñ. der Kieferorthopadie, 1966, 27 (4):438–
3. Éîðäàíîâ, É. è Â. Êðóìîâà. 5. Õîðîøèëêèíà, Ô. ß., Þ. Ìàëû- 446.