Introduction. Gonial angle and antegonial region are important landmarks in mandible which is influenced by gender, age, and dental status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the gonial angle, antegonial angle, and antegonial depth and to investigate their relationship to gender, age group, and dental status. Materials and Methods. A total of 1060 panoramic radiographs were evaluated: the dentulous group, 854 subjects and the edentulous group, 206 subjects. The patients were grouped into six age groups of 10-years each. Gonial angle, antegonial angle, and antegonial depth were measured from panoramic radiographs. Results and Discussion. Corelation of age with gonial angle, antegonial angle and antegonial depth was not significant. Significant difference in mandibular angle was found between males and females. Males had significantly smaller antegonial angle and greater antegonial depth than females. Significant difference was found for gonial angle, antegonial angle, and antegonial depth between right and left sides of mandible. Conclusion. Gonial angle, antegonial angle, and antegonial depth can be implicated as a forensic tool for gender determination but not suitable for age determination. 1. Introduction Various authors have described number of changes that take place in the morphology of the human mandible with advancing age. One of the prominent changes that have been suggested is the change in the gonial (mandibular) angle. The angle between the ramus and the corpus of the mandible is called the gonial angle. A surface field of resorption is present on the inferior edge of the mandible at the ramus-body junction, forming the antegonial notch. Any change in the gonial angle is largely produced by ramus remodeling and is determined by the remodeling direction of the ramus with its condyle. Very few studies have been carried out to correlate the changes in the mandibular angle with age, sex and dental status [1–5]. Previous reports on widening of the gonial angle in edentulous patients are conflicting. Aside from age and loss of teeth, other factors may influence change in gonial angle. Panoramic radiograph is the most obvious choice for determination of the gonial angle [4]. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate gonial angle, antegonial angle, and antegonial depth from panoramic radiographs of normal subjects and to investigate their relationship to gender, age group, and dental status. 2. Materials and Methods This study evaluated 1060 panoramic radiographs of patients visiting Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Wardha,
References
[1]
S. Francis Fish, “Change in the gonial angle,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 219–227, 1979.
[2]
D. M. Casey and L. J. Emrich, “Changes in the mandibular angle in the edentulous state,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 373–380, 1988.
[3]
E. Ohm and J. Silness, “Size of the mandibular jaw angle related to age, tooth retention and gender,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 883–891, 1999.
[4]
K. Mattila, M. Altonen, and K. Haavikko, “Determination of the gonial angle from the orthopantomogram,” Angle Orthodontist, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 107–110, 1977.
[5]
V. Dutra, J. Yang, H. Devlin, and C. Susin, “Mandibular bone remodelling in adults: evaluation of panoramic radiographs,” Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 323–328, 2004.
[6]
Q. F. Xie and A. Ainamo, “Association of mandibular angle size with cortical thickness and residual ridge height of the edentulous mandible,” Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 390–394, 2004.
[7]
A. M. Raustia and M. A. M. Salonen, “Gonial angles and condylar and ramus height of the mandible in complete denture wearers—a panoramic radiograph study,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 512–516, 1997.
[8]
S. Huumonen, K. Sipil？, B. Haikola et al., “Influence of edentulousness on gonial angle, ramus and condylar height,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 34–38, 2010.
[9]
G. Ceylan, N. Yaníkoglu, A. B. Yílmaz, and Y. Ceylan, “Changes in the mandibular angle in the dentulous and edentulous states,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 680–684, 1998.
[10]
B. Bayda？, I. Yavuz, I. M. Da？suyu, B. B？lükba？i, and I. Ceylan, “An investigation of maxillary and mandibular morphology in different overjet groups,” Australian Orthodontic Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2004.
[11]
M. Ashkenazi, L. Taubman, and A. Gavish, “Age-associated changes of the mandibular foramen position in anteroposterior dimension and of the mandibular angle in dry human mandibles,” Anatomical Record, vol. 294, no. 8, pp. 1319–1325, 2011.
[12]
M. Shahabi, B. Ramazanzadeh, and N. Mokhber, “Comparison between the external gonial angle in panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalograms of adult patients with class I malocclusion,” Journal of Oral Science, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 425–429, 2009.
[13]
K. Gungor, M. Sagir, and I. Ozer, “Evaluation of the gonial angle in the anatolian populations: from past to present,” Collegium Antropologicum, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 375–378, 2007.
[14]
N. Yaniko？lu and B. Yilmaz, “Radiological evaluation of changes in the gonial angle after teeth extraction and wearing of dentures: a 3-year longitudinal study,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. e55–e60, 2008.
[15]
S. Ghosh, M. Vengal, K. M. Pai, and K. Abhishek, “Remodeling of the antegonial angle region in the human mandible: a panoramic radiographic cross-sectional study,” Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. e802–e807, 2010.
