Mandibular morphology of the Mongoloid race in Medan according to age groups

Maria Sitanggang, Trelia Boel

Abstract views = 432 times | views = 164 times


Background: The mandible constitutes part of the craniofacial bone that plays an important role in determining an individual’s facial profile. The mandible grows and develops throughout life from the prenatal phase up to old age when it becomes and edentulous. Changes in the mandible can be measured using radiographs. These establish several parameters of mandibular morphology, including: ramus height, condylion height, body length, condylion angle, symphysis height, symphysis width and symphysis angle. Purpose: This study aimed to determine differences in the mandibular morphology of members of the mongoloid racial group in Medan according to age as measured by cephalometric radiography. Methods: This investigation constituted analytical research using cross-sectional study with a total sample of 150 individuals divided according to age: group 1 (aged 4-12 years), group 2 (aged 13-24 years, group 3 (aged 25-34 years), group 4 (aged 35-60 years) and group of 5 (aged > 60 years). The parameters were computerized by means of a digital cephalometric radiograph, the resulting data being analized with Oneway ANOVA and LSD. Results: The mean value of the highest to the lowest ramus height, and symphysis height from the five age groups, sequentially, were in group 3, group 4, group 5, group 2, and group 1. The mean value from the highest to the lowest of body length, condylion height, condylion angle, and symphysis width, sequentially, were in group 3, group 4, group 2, group 5, and group 1. The mean value from the highest to the lowest of symphysis angle, sequentially, were in group 1, group 3, group 4, group 2, and  group 5. Conclusion: The mandibular morphology of each age group differs in Mongoloid races in Medan based on lateral cephalometric radiography in which changes are may be affected by the state of teeth and age.


mandibular morphology; cephalometric radiograph; age group

Full Text:



Mangla R, Singh N, Dua V, Padmanabhan P, Khanna M. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011; 2(3): 200–6.

Thakur KC, Choudhary AK, Jain SK, Kumar L. Racial architecture of human mandible - an anthropological study. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2013; 2(23): 4177–88.

Sharma P, Arora A, Valiathan A. Age changes of jaws and soft tissue profile. Sci World J. 2014; 2014: 1–7.

Basnet BB, Parajuli PK, Singh RK, Suwal P, Shrestha P, Baral D. An anthropometric study to evaluate the correlation between the occlusal vertical dimension and length of the thumb. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015; 7: 33–9.

Wolfswinkel EM, Weathers WM, Wirthlin JO, Monson LA, Hollier LH, Khechoyan DY. Management of pediatric mandible fractures. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2013; 46(5): 791–806.

Liu Y, Behrents RG, Buschang PH. Mandibular growth, remodeling, and maturation during infancy and early childhood. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 97–105.

Huumonen S, Sipilä K, Haikola B, Tapio M, Söderholm AL, Remes-Lyly T, Oikarinen K, Raustia AM. Influence of edentulousness on gonial angle, ramus and condylar height. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37: 34–8.

Reynolds M, Reynolds M, Adeeb S, El-Bialy T. 3-D volumetric evaluation of human mandibular growth. Open Biomed Eng J. 2011; 5: 83–9.

Okşayan R, Asarkaya B, Palta N, Simsek I, Sökücü O, Isman E. Effects of edentulism on mandibular morphology: evaluation of panoramic radiographs. Sci World J. 2014; 2014: 1–5.

Singh G. Textbook of orthodontics. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher; 2007. p. 7-21.

Shaw Jr RB, Katzel EB, Koltz PF, Kahn DM, Girotto JA, Langstein HN. Aging of the mandible and its aesthetic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125(1): 332–42.

Ghaffari R, Hosseinzade A, Zarabi H, Kazemi M. Mandibular dimensional changes with aging in three dimensional computed tomographic study in 21 to 50 year old men and women. J Dentomaxillofacial Radiol Pathol Surg. 2013; 2: 7–12.

Al-shamout R, Ammoush M, Alrbata R, Al-habahbah A. Age and gender differences in gonial angle, ramus height and bigonial width in dentate subjects. Pakistan Oral Dent J. 2012; 32: 81–7.

Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St Louis-Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2012. p. 1-60.

Ghosh S, Vengal M, Pai KM. Remodeling of the human mandible in the gonial angle region: a panoramic, radiographic, cross-sectional study. Oral Radiol. 2009; 25: 2–5.

Chole RH, Patil RN, Balsaraf Chole S, Gondivkar S, Gadbail AR, Yuwanati MB. Association of mandible anatomy with age, gender, and dental status: a radiographic study. ISRN Radiol. 2013; 2013: 1–4.

Shilpa B, Srivastava S, Sharma RK, Sudha C. Combined effect of age and sex on the gonial angle of mandible in North-Indian population. J Surg Acad. 2014; 4(2): 14–20.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

View My Stats