Correlative and comparative study of Fishman′s skeletal maturity indicators with CVMI and chronological age in Lucknow population

Abstract

Objective: The present study consists of comparison and correlation between the hand-wrist skeletal maturation indicator (SMI) and the cervical vertebral maturation indicator (CVMI) and verification of the reliability of the vertebral index and chronological age in the determination of the stages of the skeletal maturation. Materials and Methods: The study consisted of randomly selected 90 children from Lucknow population with 45 males (age range 10-13 years) and 45 females (age range 9-12 years). Hand wrist radiograph taken for SMI, Lateral cephalogram taken for CVMI. Correlation was made between cervical vertebrae maturation and hand wrist maturation. These two methods and the chronological age were compared using the Newman-Keuls test. Results: There was strong correlation between SMI and CVMI for both male and female (0.849, 0.932). Cervical vertebrae maturation indicator and hand-wrist skeletal maturational indicator (SMI) showed no statistical signi?cant difference for males and females. However, females showed maturation at an early age as compared to males. Chronological age shows significant difference in comparison to skeletal age. Conclusion: It was concluded that CVMI stages can also be used as for assessing skeletal maturity. Cervical vertebrae assessment provided a reliable assessment for pubertal growth spurt, it would be bene?cial to use a lateral cephalogram for skeletal maturity assessment and thereby eliminate the need for an additional radiograph (hand-wrist radiograph). This is cost effective and will also reduce the radiation exposure to the patient.

Keywords

Cervical vertebrae - hand-wrist - pubertal growth spurt - skeletal age

• References

• 1 Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;107:58-66.
• 2 Bjork A, Helm S. Prediction of the age of maximum pubertal growth in body height. Angle Orthod 1967;37:134-43.
• 3 Gupta S, Sharma A, Grewal H: Pubertal growth spurt in orthodontics. J Ind Orthod Soc 1998;31:17-20.
• 4 Lamparski D. Skeletal age assessment utilizing cervical vertebrae [Thesis]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1972. (cited from Am J Orthod 1995;107:55-8).
• 5 Fishman LS. Radiographic evaluation of skeletal maturation. A clinically oriented method based on Hand-wrist films. Angle Orthod 1981;52;88-112.
• 6 Burstone. Process of maturation and prediction. Am J Orthod 1963;49:907-19.
• 7 Fishman LS. Chronological versus skeletal age, an evaluation of craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod 1979;49:181-9.
• 8 Fishman. Maturation pattern and prediction during adolescence. Angle Orthod 1987;57:178-93.
• 9 Hunter. The correlation of facial growth with body height and skeletal maturation at adolescence. Angle Orthod 1966;36:44-54.
• 10 Schour, Massler. The development of the human dentition. JADA 1941;1153-60.
• 11 Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Biren S, Tulin A. Comparisons between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist matura-tion for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;24:47-52.
• 12 Hellsing E. Cervical vertebral dimensions in 8-, 11- and 15-year old children. Acta Odontol Scand 1991;49:207-13.
• 13 Hagg U, Taranger J. Maturation indicators and the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod 1982;82:299-309.
• 14 Szyska M, Pancherz H. The cervical vertebrae (C3) in skeletal and somatic maturation evaluation. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:624.
• 15 García-Fernandez P, Torre H, Flores L, Rea J. Skeletal age assessment: Comparative study between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation. In: Farman AG, Ruprecht A, Gibbs SJ, Scarfe WC, editors. Advances in Maxillofacial Imaging. IADMFR/CMI′97. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1997. p. 215-22.