Aim: There is great variation of growth among individuals. The question whether patients with different skeletal discrepancies grow differently is biologically interesting but also important in designing clinical trials. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether growth direction depends on the initial craniofacial pattern. Subjects and method: The sample consisted of 350 lateral cephalograms of 175 subjects (91 females and 84 males) followed during normal growth without any orthodontic treatment. The examined ages were 12 (T1) and 14 (T2) years. The cephalograms were obtained from the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (AAOF) Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection (Burlington, Fels, Iowa, and Oregon growth studies). We digitally traced 15 curves on each cephalogram, comprehensively covering the craniofacial skeleton, and located 127 points on the curves, 117 of which were sliding semilandmarks and 10 fixed. Procrustes alignment, principal component analysis and two-block partial least squares analysis were performed, after sliding the semilandmarks to minimize bending energy. Results: The first 10 principal components (PCs) described approximately 71 per cent of the total shape variance. PC1 was related to shape variance in the vertical direction (low/high angle skeletal pattern) and PC2 was mainly related to shape variance in the anteroposterior direction (Class II/Class III pattern). PC3 was mainly related to the shape variance of the mandibular angle. All subjects shared a similar growth trajectory in shape space. We did not find any correlation between the initial shape and the magnitude of shape change between T1 and T2, but males showed a greater shape change than females. The direction of shape change was moderately correlated to the initial shape (RV coefficient: 0.14, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The initial shape of the craniofacial complex covaried weakly with the direction of shape change during growth.

Objective: To assess shape covariation of the palate and craniofacial complex (CFC) in children and adolescents. Methods: Pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and corresponding maxillary casts of 100 children (8-10 years) and 100 adolescents (15-20 years) were digitized. Exclusion criteria were previous orthodontic treatment, craniofacial syndromes, mouth breathing, finger sucking, crossbite, tooth agenesis, and tooth impaction. Palatal shape was described with 239 surface and curve semilandmarks and craniofacial shape with 10 fixed landmarks and 117 curve semilandmarks. Procrustes superimposition and principal component analysis were applied for evaluation of shape variability. Shape covariation between palate and CFC was assessed with partial least squares analysis. Results: The first five principal components explained 77 per cent (palate) and 60 per cent (CFC) of total shape variability. The palate varied mainly in height (adolescent group) and width-length (both groups), whereas the CFC varied mainly in the vertical dimension. Significant covariation was found between the craniofacial and palatal components (RV coefficient: 0.27, children; RV: 0.23, adolescents). Variation of the CFC in the vertical and anteroposterior direction was mainly related to variation in the height-width and the width-length ratio of the palate, respectively. Limitations: The use of lateral cephalometric radiographs eliminated the transverse dimension from the craniofacial shape analysis. The study was cross-sectional, so the observed intergroup differences should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Covariation strength and pattern were similar in children and adolescents. The closer a subject was to the high-angle end of the variability spectrum, the higher and narrower was the palate, and conversely.

Aim : To evaluate the shape of the craniofacial complex in patients with tooth agenesis and compare it to matched controls. Subjects and methods : The sample comprised 456 patients that were allocated to three groups: the agenesis group of 100 patients with at least one missing tooth, excluding third molars, the third molar agenesis group (3dMAG; one to four missing third molars) of 52 patients and the control group (CG) of 304 patients with no missing teeth. The main craniofacial structures depicted on lateral cephalograms were digitized and traced with 15 curves and 127 landmarks. These landmarks were subjected to Procrustes superimposition and principal component analysis in order to describe shape variability of the cranial base, maxilla and mandible, as well as of the whole craniofacial complex. For statistical analysis, permutation tests were used (10 000 permutations without replacement). Results : Approximately half of the sample's variability was described by the first three principal components. Comparisons within the whole sample revealed sexual dimorphism of the craniofacial complex and its structures (P < 0.01). Differences between the agenesis group and matched controls were found in the shape of all craniofacial structures except for the cranial base (P < 0.05). Specifically, patients with agenesis presented with Class III tendency and hypodivergent skeletal pattern. However, the comparison between the 3dMAG and matched CG revealed no differences. Conclusion : The shape of the craniofacial complex differs in patients with tooth agenesis suggesting that common factors are implicated in tooth development and craniofacial morphology.

Serial 3-dimensional dental model superimposition provides a risk-free, detailed evaluation of morphological alterations on a patient's mouth. Here, we evaluated accuracy and precision of five palatal areas, used for superimposition of maxillary 3D digital dental casts. Sixteen pre- and post-orthodontic treatment dental casts of growing patients (median time lapse: 15.1 months) were superimposed on each palatal area using the iterative closest point algorithm. Area A (medial 2/3 of the third rugae and a small area dorsal to them) was considered the gold standard, due to high anatomical stability. Areas B, C, and D added a distal extension along the midpalatal raphe, an anterior extension to the second rugae, and the remaining palatal surface, respectively. Area E was similar to A, located more posteriorly. Non parametric multivariate models showed minimal or no effect on accuracy and precision by operator, time point, or software settings. However, the choice of superimposition area resulted in statistically significant differences in accuracy and clinically significant differences in detected tooth movement (95% limits of agreement exceeding 1 mm and 3°). Superimposition on area A provided accurate, reproducible, and precise results. Outcomes were comparable for area B, but deteriorated when alternative areas were used.

Objectives: To evaluate the patterns of covariation between palatal and craniofacial morphology in Class II subjects in the early mixed dentition by means of geometric morphometrics. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 85 Class II subjects (44 females, 41 males; mean age 8.7 years ± 0.8) was collected retrospectively according to the following inclusion criteria: European ancestry (white), Class II skeletal relationship, Class II division 1 dental relationship, early mixed dentition, and prepubertal skeletal maturation. Pre-treatment digital 3D maxillary dental casts and lateral cephalograms were available. Landmarks and semilandmarks were digitized (239 on the palate and 121 on the cephalogram) and geometric morphometric methods (GMM) were applied. Procrustes analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) were performed to reveal the main patterns of palatal shape and craniofacial skeletal shape variation. Two-block partial least squares analysis (PLS) assessed patterns of covariation between palatal morphology and craniofacial morphology. Results: For the morphology of the palate, the first principal component (PC1) described variation in all three dimensions. For the morphology of the craniofacial complex, PC1 showed shape variation mainly in the vertical direction. Palatal shape and craniofacial shape covaried significantly (RV coefficient: 0.199). PLS1 accounted for more than 64 per cent of total covariation and related divergence of the craniofacial complex to palatal height and width. The more a Class II subject tended towards high-angle divergence, the narrower and higher was the palate. Conclusions: Class II high-angle patients tended to have narrower and higher palates, while Class II low-angle patients were related to wider and more shallow palates.