Objective:

To describe cervical vertebra morphology in subjects with different anteroposterior jaw relationships.

Materials and Methods:

Cone-beam computed tomography images of 31 female subjects aged 19 to 41 years were evaluated. Subjects constituted two groups according to the ANB angle: group 1, skeletal Class II (ANB angle >5); and group 2, skeletal Class III (ANB angle <1). Nine linear measurements and one angular measurement were used to assess the vertebral morphology. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for statistical analysis.

Results:

The mean atlas dorsal arch height was significantly shorter in Class II subjects compared with those in Class III (P < .05). The cervical vertebra morphological analysis by cone-beam computed tomography was of comparable precision to three-dimensional computed tomography evaluations. This study confirmed previous findings that Class II subjects have significantly lower atlas dorsal arch heights.

Conclusion:

The height of the atlas dorsal arch of cervical vertebrae is affected by the anteroposterior skeletal pattern.

The cervical vertebra column supporting the head comprises seven vertebrae. The first vertebra (C1) or atlas and the second vertebra or axis together form the superior or suboccipital segment connecting the spine to the occiput and involving a complex chain of joints. Suboccipital muscles attached to this region determine head posture, controlling fine through complicated movements for compound flexion and extension, as well as lateral flexion with rotation.1 

Dimensions of C1 as well as head and neck posture are associated with factors such as craniofacial morphology, including the cranial base,24 upper airway space,5 occlusion,27 and temporomandibular disorders.8,9 Furthermore, head posture is linked to the development and function of dentofacial structures.9 The relationship between C1 dimensions and craniocervical posture has also been studied.2 Cervical posture was linked to mandibular length, with longer mandibles associated with cervical columns more inclined to the true horizontal.10 Mandibular length was also directly correlated with straightness of the cervical column (ie, a lower cervical lordosis angle).11 However, no previous studies have described the relationship between cervical vertebra morphology using three-dimensional imaging and maxillofacial morphology.

Computed tomography (CT) was first considered for such a study because of the accurate three-dimensional imaging that is possible with CT. However, limitations such as radiation, machine size, and cost made this approach impractical. The more recently established cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) presents a more feasible alternative, as these lower-cost and smaller machines still produce high-quality data. With several CBCT scanners now available, involving lower radiation dosages1215 and lower costs,16 three-dimensional (3D) radiography is becoming more commonplace in the dental profession as a valuable diagnostic tool.

This study investigated the detailed morphology of cervical vertebrae in three dimensions in subjects with different anteroposterior skeletal patterning.

Subjects

CBCT scan radiographs were obtained from the Department of Orthodontics files at Showa University Dental Hospital for orthognathic surgery. Images were derived from pretreatment CBCT scans of 31 female subjects aged 19 to 41 years, for the following conditions: maxillofacial injury without fracture, diffuse inflammation, soft tissue tumor, neuralgia, and unknown lesion. Subjects were excluded from the study if they had congenital disorders such as cleft palate, general physical problems, or disorders of the pharyngeal soft tissue, including adenoiditis or enlarged tonsils, or if they were not of Japanese racial heritage. Final participants met the following requirements: all permanent teeth erupted, except third molars; no functional mandibular deviations; no evident facial asymmetry; no history of orthodontic treatment during childhood; and no neck pain or medical history of cervical disorders. Only females were included in this study because the number of males with skeletal Class II (ANB angle >5) and/or skeletal Class III (ANB angle <1) established with CBCT images was insufficient for meaningful analysis. This study was approved by the Showa University Dental Hospital Ethics Committee.

Obtaining CBCT Images

Cervical vertebrae were scanned and analyzed using the CB MercuRay (Hitachi Medico Technology, Tokyo, Japan). The scanning conditions were 100 kVp, 10 mA, F-mode 512 slices/scan (slice width of 377 µm), and 9.6 seconds. Data obtained were reconstructed using the CBworks 2.0 three-dimensional reconstruction software (Hitachi Medico Technology).

For CT imaging, patients were positioned in centric occlusion (maximum dental intercuspation), and their heads were positioned such that the Frankfort and midsagittal planes were perpendicular to the floor. Subjects were seated in the CB MercuRay system, with their facial median line vertical to the floor and Frankfort plane parallel to the floor. This position was controlled by a guideline directed from the front and sides.

Measurements

CBCT images were used to assess the maxillofacial characteristics of Class II and Class III subjects, SNA, SNB, ANB, and mandibular plane (linear measurements detailed in Tables 1 and 2). Figure 4 demonstrates both the angular and linear measurements obtained by CBCT. Of those obtained, eight linear measurements and one angular measurement were used to assess cervical vertebra morphology with different sagittal skeletal patterns.

Table 1

The Maxillofacial Characteristics of Class II and Class III Groups

The Maxillofacial Characteristics of Class II and Class III Groups
The Maxillofacial Characteristics of Class II and Class III Groups
Table 2

Mean Value of Cervical Vertebra Measurements

Mean Value of Cervical Vertebra Measurements
Mean Value of Cervical Vertebra Measurements
  1. Horizontal outer anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the first cervical vertebra (C1)17 (mm) (HOAPC1; Figure 1)

  2. Horizontal inner AP diameter of C117 (mm) (HIAPC1; Figure 1)

  3. Horizontal outer transverse diameter of C117 (mm) (HOTDC1; Figure 1)

  4. Distance between outer margin of transverse foramen and outer margin of lateral mass17 (mm) (outer margin; Figure 1)

  5. AP diameter of superior surface of C1 anterior arch17 (mm) (superior surface; Figure 1)

  6. Lateral outer AP diameter of C118 (mm) (LOAPC1; Figure 2)

  7. Height of the atlas dorsal arch18 (mm) (dorsal arch; Figure 2)

  8. Frontal outer transverse diameter of C1 (mm) (FOTDC117; Figure 3)

  9. Angle along axis line of the dens to occlusal plane (dens angle19 [degrees]; Figure 4)

Figure 1

Horizontal outer anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the first cervical vertebra (C1) (mm); HOAPC1. Horizontal inner AP diameter of C1 (mm); HIAPC1. Horizontal outer transverse diameter of C1 (mm); HOTDC1. Distance between outer margin of transverse foramen and outer margin of lateral mass (mm); outer margin. AP diameter of the superior surface of C1 anterior arch (mm); superior surface.

Figure 1

Horizontal outer anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the first cervical vertebra (C1) (mm); HOAPC1. Horizontal inner AP diameter of C1 (mm); HIAPC1. Horizontal outer transverse diameter of C1 (mm); HOTDC1. Distance between outer margin of transverse foramen and outer margin of lateral mass (mm); outer margin. AP diameter of the superior surface of C1 anterior arch (mm); superior surface.

Close modal
Figure 2

Lateral outer AP diameter of C1 (mm); LOAPC1. Height of the atlas dorsal arch (mm); dorsal arch.

Figure 2

Lateral outer AP diameter of C1 (mm); LOAPC1. Height of the atlas dorsal arch (mm); dorsal arch.

Close modal
Figure 3

Frontal outer transverse diameter of C1 (mm); FOTDC1.

Figure 3

Frontal outer transverse diameter of C1 (mm); FOTDC1.

Close modal
Figure 4

Angle along axis line of the dens to occlusal plane; dens angle.

Figure 4

Angle along axis line of the dens to occlusal plane; dens angle.

Close modal

Reliability

Measurement error was determined by the random selection of four CBCT images on two separate occasions. One-way analysis of variance, used to test the quality of means for the three measurements, suggested that this sampling was consistent. Mean scores for the three measurements did not differ significantly; the measurement error was thus considered to be negligible.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical significance of differences between the Class II and Class III groups was determined using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Analyses were performed using Statcel 2 (four-step Excel statistics, version 2, OMS Publishing, Saitama, Japan). P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.

Table 1 details the mean value of maxillofacial dimensions in the Class II and Class III groups. No statistically significant difference in SNA and mandibular plane angle was noted between Class II and Class III subjects.

Table 2 details the mean value of cervical vertebra measurements in Class II and Class III groups. Only the height of the atlas dorsal arch showed a significant difference between Class II and Class III (P  =  .029), with the other measurements not significantly different among subjects regardless of skeletal class.

Skeletal class and cervico-vertebral anatomy both are associated with craniofacial structure. CT imaging has proved remarkably accurate in these association studies for linear,2023 geometric,24 and volumetric25,26 measurements within the maxillofacial complex. Further to this, we now reveal differences in cervical vertebra morphology in subjects with different anteroposterior jaw relationships.

This study demonstrated significant differences between Class II and Class III subjects in height of the atlas dorsal arch. A pattern of positive correlation between mandibular length (Ar-Me) and the anteroposterior length of the atlas was previously shown to increase in growing subjects.18 In addition, morphological analysis of the atlas dorsal arch revealed a clear association with the growth direction of the mandible, whereby a lower atlas dorsal arch indicated less horizontal growth of the mandible.27 This is probably due to the fact that subjects with a low dorsal arch had a relatively elevated head position and thus altered suprahyoidal muscular activity, which would permanently affect the position of the mandible.27 Therefore, it was proposed that understanding the form of the cervical vertebra and the orthodontic treatment would enhance the treatment plan for subsequent growth.2 

This study found no difference in mandibular plane angle between Class II and Class III groups (Table 1). Therefore, the variation demonstrated here in height of the atlas dorsal arch seems independent of craniofacial vertical differences. Several studies have suggested that craniofacial vertical differences are related to differences in cervical morphology.6,7 The present findings showed no difference in outer margin values between groups, although the vertical differences in craniofacial morphology were related to the outer margin measurements.28 

The anatomy and position of the cervical curvature in space depend on various body factors, including ethnicity,2931 gender,29,30,3234 age,3,32,33 stature,35 and craniofacial morphology.4,10,11,3639 Differences in these correlations might be attributed to factors such as racial difference,39 although the association between craniofacial measurements and atlas morphology varied with sex and age. The growth directions in cervical vertebrae and mandible growth are certainly associated, although influences here of gender and racial differences are possible.18 Moreover, this study suggested that Japanese female Class II subjects had lower dorsal arch heights than Class III subjects.

  • This study confirmed past findings that Class II subjects are significantly shorter in terms of atlas dorsal arch height. Our findings on the relationship of anteroposterior skeletal pattern to the transverse diameter of C1 parallel the results of previous studies.17,4043 

  • The atlas dorsal arch height of cervical vertebrae is affected by the anteroposterior skeletal pattern.

This study was supported by a Showa University Research Grant for Young Researchers.

1
Kapandji
,
I. A.
The Physiology of the Joints. Annotated Diagrams of the Mechanics of the Human Joints. Vol 3. The Trunk and the Vertebral Column
.
Edinburgh and London
Churchill Livingstone
.
1970–1974
.
170
251
.
2
Huggare
,
J.
Association between morphology of the first cervical vertebra, head posture, and craniofacial structures.
Eur J Orthod
1991
.
13
:
435
440
.
3
Hellsing
,
E.
,
T.
Reigo
,
J.
McWilliam
, and
E.
Spangfort
.
Cervical and lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis in 8, 11 and 15-year-old children.
Eur J Orthod
1987
.
9
:
129
138
.
4
Solow
,
B.
and
A.
Tallgren
.
Head posture and craniofacial morphology.
Am J Phys Anthropol
1976
.
44
:
417
435
.
5
Solow
,
B.
and
S.
Siersbaek-Nielsen
.
Airway adequacy, head posture, and craniofacial morphology.
Am J Phys Anthropol
1984
.
86
:
214
223
.
6
Sonnesen
,
L.
and
I.
Kjaer
.
Cervical column morphology in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion and mandibular overjet.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2007
.
132
:
427e7
427e12
.
7
Sonnesen
,
L.
and
I.
Kjaer
.
Anomalies of the cervical vertebrae in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion and horizontal maxillary overjet.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2008
.
133
:
188e15
188e20
.
8
Hackney
,
J.
,
D.
Bade
, and
A.
Clawson
.
Relationship between forward head posture and diagnosed internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint.
J Orofac Pain
1993
.
7
:
386
390
.
9
Sonnesen
,
L.
,
M.
Bakke
, and
B.
Solow
.
Temporomandibular disorders in relation to craniofacial dimensions, head posture and bite force in children selected for orthodontic treatment.
Eur J Orthod
2001
.
23
:
179
192
.
10
Özbek
,
M. M.
and
A.
Köklü
.
Natural cervical inclination and craniofacial structure.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1993
.
104
:
584
591
.
11
Festa
,
F.
,
M.
Dolci
, and
M.
Filippi
.
Relationship between cervical lordosis and facial morphology in Caucasian women with skeletal Class II malocclusion: a cross-sectional study.
Cranio
2003
.
21
:
121
129
.
12
Kau
,
C. H.
,
S.
Richmond
,
J. M.
Palomo
, and
M. G.
Hans
.
Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics.
J Orthod
2005
.
32
:
282
293
.
13
Hatcher
,
D. C.
and
C. L.
Aboudara
.
Diagnosis goes digital.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2004
.
125
:
512
515
.
14
Ludlow
,
J. B.
,
L. E.
Davies-Ludlow
,
S. L.
Brooks
, and
W. B.
Howerton
.
Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
2006
.
35
:
219
226
.
15
Walker
,
L.
,
R.
Enciso
, and
J.
Mah
.
Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone-beam computed tomography.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2005
.
128
:
418
423
.
16
Sukovic
,
P.
Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging.
Orthod Craniofac Res
2003
.
6
(
suppl 1
):
31
36; discussion 179–182
.
17
Naderi
,
S.
,
H.
Cakmakçi
,
F.
Acar
,
C.
Arman
,
T.
Mertol
, and
M. N.
Arda
.
Anatomical and computed tomographic analysis of C1 vertebra.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
2003
.
4
:
245
248
.
18
Ronaldo
,
G. V.
,
T.
Mohri
,
S.
Morita
, and
K.
Hanada
.
Cephalometric study on the morphology of the first cervical vertebra to craniofacial structure. Part 1: Is there any relationship?
Niigata Dent J
1996
.
26
:
13
24
.
19
Akimoto
,
Y.
,
H.
Noma
, and
T.
Takaki
.
A study of the relationship between the occlusal plane and the dens of the axis by lateral cephalography, regarding individual-normal occlusion persons and patients with jaw deformity.
Jpn J Jaw Deform
2000
.
10
:
89
98
.
20
Hilgers
,
M. L.
,
W. C.
Scarfe
,
J. P.
Scheetz
, and
A. G.
Farman
.
Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2005
.
128
:
803
811
.
21
Lascala
,
C. A.
,
J.
Panella
, and
M. M.
Marques
.
Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom).
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
2004
.
33
:
291
294
.
22
Kobayashi
,
K.
,
S.
Shimoda
,
Y.
Nakagawa
, and
A.
Yamamoto
.
Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2004
.
19
:
228
231
.
23
Misch
,
K. A.
,
E. S.
Yi
, and
D. P.
Sarment
.
Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements.
J Periodontol
2006
.
77
:
1261
1266
.
24
Marmulla
,
R.
,
R.
Wortche
,
J.
Muhling
, and
S.
Hassfeld
.
Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
2005
.
34
:
28
31
.
25
Stratemann
,
S. A.
,
J. C.
Huang
,
K.
Maki
,
A. J.
Miller
, and
D. C.
Hatcher
.
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
2008
.
37
:
80
93
.
26
Breiman
,
R. S.
,
J. W.
Beck
,
M.
Korobkin
,
R.
Glenny
,
O. E.
Akwari
,
D. K.
Heaston
,
A. V.
Moore
, and
P. C.
Ram
.
Volume determinations using computed tomography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
1982
.
138
:
329
333
.
27
Huggare
,
J.
The first cervical vertebra as an indicator of mandibular growth.
Eur J Orthod
1989
.
11
:
10
16
.
28
Kato
,
C.
,
T.
Yamaguchi
,
M.
Watanabe
,
Y.
Tomoyasu
,
Y.
Asama
, and
K.
Maki
.
Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of cervical vertebra morphology in female patients with skeletal open bite.
Hosp Dent (Tokyo)
2009
.
21
:
7
11
.
29
Solow
,
B.
,
M. J.
Barrett
, and
T.
Brown
.
Craniocervical morphology and posture in Australian Aboriginals.
Am J Phys Anthropol
1982
.
59
:
33
45
.
30
Cooke
,
M. S.
and
S. H.
Wei
.
Intersex differences in craniocervical morphology and posture in southern Chinese and British Caucasians.
Am J Phys Anthropol
1988
.
77
:
43
51
.
31
Grave
,
B.
,
T.
Brown
, and
G.
Townsend
.
Comparison of cervicovertebral dimensions in Australian Aborigines and Caucasians.
Eur J Orthod
1999
.
21
:
127
135
.
32
Borden
,
A. G.
,
A. M.
Rechtman
, and
J. G.
Gershon-Cohen
.
The normal cervical lordosis.
Radiology
1960
.
74
:
806
809
.
33
Rechtman
,
A. M.
,
A. G.
Boreadis Borden
, and
J.
Gershon-Cohen
.
The lordotic curve is the cervical spine.
Clin Orthop
1961
.
20
:
208
216
.
34
Hardacker
,
J. W.
,
R. F.
Shuford
,
P. N.
Capicotto
, and
P. W.
Pryar
.
Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms.
Spine
1997
.
22
:
1472
1480
.
35
Huggare
,
JÅV.
and
M. T.
Laine-Alava
.
Nasorespiratory function and head posture.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1997
.
112
:
507
511
.
36
Gresham
,
H.
and
P. A.
Smithells
.
Cervical and mandibular posture.
Dental Record
1954
.
74
:
261
264
.
37
Bench
,
R. W.
Growth of the cervical vertebrae as related to tongue, face, and denture behavior.
Am J Orthod
1963
.
49
:
183
214
.
38
Marcotte
,
M. R.
Head posture and dentofacial proportions.
Angle Orthod
1981
.
51
:
208
213
.
39
Nezu
,
H.
,
K.
Nagata
,
Y.
Yoshida
,
H.
Kosaka
, and
M.
Kikuchi
.
Cephalometric comparison of clinical norms between the Japanese and Caucasians.
J Jpn Orthod Soc
1982
.
41
:
450
465
.
40
Doherty
,
B. J.
and
M. H. O.
Heggeness
.
The quantitative anatomy of the atlas.
Spine
1994
.
19
:
2497
2500
.
41
Francis
,
C. C.
Variations in the articular facets of the cervical vertebrae.
Anat Res
1995
.
122
:
589
602
.
42
Francis
,
C. C.
Dimensions of the cervical vertebrae.
Anat Res
1995
.
122
:
603
609
.
43
Williams
,
P. L.
,
R.
Warwick
,
A.
Dyson
, and
L. H.
Bannister
.
In:
.
Gray's Anatomy
.
Norwick, UK
Churchill Livingstone
.
1998
.
317
318
.