Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial variation in normal Saudi population according to Steiner analysis

Saudi Medical Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2000, Pages 746-750

  Al Jasser, Nasser M ^a  

^a KING SAUD UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

Cephalometric evaluation; Ethnic variation; Population; Steiner analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ESTHETICS; ETHNIC GROUP; FACE; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REFERENCE VALUE; SAUDI ARABIA; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SKULL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; TOOTH OCCLUSION;

CEPHALOMETRY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DENTAL OCCLUSION; ESTHETICS; ETHNIC GROUPS; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; REFERENCE VALUES; SAMPLING STUDIES; SAUDI ARABIA; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SKULL;

EID: 0034252738     PISSN: 03795284     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ricketts RA. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthod 1960; 30: 103-33.
2. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1: 45-66.
3. Brodie AG, Downs W, Goldstein A, Myer E. Cephalometric appraisal of Orthodontic results. Angle Orthod 1938; 8: 261-351.
4. Bjork A. The face in profile. Am J Orthod 1948; 34: 691-699.
5. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationship. Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948; 34, 812-840.
6. Steiner CC. Cephalometric for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 729-754.
7. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular-incisal angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 1954; 24: 121-169.
8. Altemus LA. A comparison of cephalometric relationships. Angle Orthod 1960; 30: 223-239.
9. Ḑrummond RA. A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race. Am J Orthod 1968; 54: 670-682.
10. Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 431-438.
11. Iizuka T, Ishikawa F. Normal standards for various cephalometric analysis in Japanese adults. J Jpn Orthod 1957; 16: 4-12.
12. Lew KKK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 50: 1184-1189.
13. Cooke MS, Wei SHY. Cephalometric standards for the Southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10: 264-272.
14. Fonseca RJ, Klein WD. A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 152-60.
15. Conner AM, Moshiri R. Orthognathic surgery norms for American black patients. Am J Orthod 1985; 87: 119-134.
16. Nwoku AL, Isiekwe MC. Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial variation in normal Nigerian Negro population. [Abstract]. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 1982.
17. Bravo LA. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 31-42.
18. De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 67-73.
19. Cons NC, Jenny J. Comparing perceptions of dental aesthetics in the USA with those in eleven ethnic groups. Int Dent J 1994; 44: 489-494.
20. Al-Yami EA. Orthodontics: Treatment need and treatment outcome. [Ph.D. Thesis]. The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen; 1997.
21. Kowalski C, Walker G. The use of incisal angles in the Steiner cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 1972; 42: 87-95.
22. Shalhoub SY, Sarhan OA, Shaikh HS. Adult cephalometric norms for Saudi Arabians with a comparison of values for Saudi and North American Caucasians. Br J Orthod 1987; 14: 273-279.
23. Al-Barakati S. Skeleto-dental characteristic features among Saudi female school children. A cephalometric study. [Thesis]. Riyadh (KSA): College of Dentistry, King Saud University; 1996.
24. Nashashibi IA, Sheikh HS, Sarha OA. Cephalometirc norms of Saudi boys. The Saudi Dent J 1990; 2: 52-57.