SPJ Publication
New Era Medical Journal
Open Access Original Research

Evaluation of Anterior Cranial Base Length Across Skeletal Malocclusion Patterns in a North Indian Population: A Retrospective Study

*, , , ,

* Corresponding author: Dr Ishani Sethi

DOI10.62502/nemj/v2i3art2
Pages 7–12Language ENLicenceCC BY-NC 4.0 Crossmark XML metadata
  1. Received10 May 2026
  2. Accepted26 Aug 2026
  3. Published25 Sep 2026

Abstract

Background: Anterior cranial base length is an important component of craniofacial morphology and may influence the interpretation of sagittal skeletal relationships. However, its association with different skeletal malocclusion patterns remains insufficiently established across populations.

Objective: To evaluate and compare anterior cranial base length (S–N) among skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions in a North Indian population.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 90 subjects aged 18–25 years, divided into three skeletal groups (n = 30 each) based on ANB angle criteria. Lateral cephalograms were manually traced, and S–N length was measured. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.0, with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: The mean S–N length was 66.20 ± 2.59 mm in Class I, 66.60 ± 3.87 mm in Class II, and 67.13 ± 4.56 mm in Class III subjects. Although the mean length increased progressively from Class I to Class III, the differences were not statistically significant according to conventional one-way ANOVA (F = 0.465, p = 0.630). The estimated effect size was small (η² ≈ 0.011). Levene’s test indicated unequal group variances (p = 0.002), warranting confirmation using Welch’s ANOVA.

Conclusion: No statistically significant difference in anterior cranial base length was detected among the three skeletal malocclusion groups using conventional ANOVA. Further studies employing variance-robust statistical methods and comprehensive cephalometric assessments are needed to clarify this relationship.

Keywords

Anterior Cranial BaseSella–Nasion LengthSkeletal Malocclusion

References

  1. Gong A, Li J, Wang Z, Li Y, Hu F, Li Q, et al. Cranial base characteristics in anteroposterior malocclusions: a meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(4):668–680. doi:10.2319/032315-186.1.

  2. Arntsen T, Kjær I, Sonnesen L. Lengths of the maxillary central incisor, the nasal bone, and the anterior cranial base in different skeletal malocclusions. Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(5):265–270. doi:10.1080/00016350802572314.

  3. Kumari S, Bapat SM. Assessment of anterior cranial base length in two different age groups of Central Indian population. J Dent Res Rev. 2019;6:49–51.

  4. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the Beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):100–105. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026.

  5. Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the YEN angle. World J Orthod. 2009;10(2):147–151.

  6. Bohra S, Udeshi PS, Sinha SP, Saidath K, Shetty KP, Nayak US. Predictability of Pi angle and its comparison with ANB angle, W angle, Yen angle and Beta angle in South Indian population. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2018;52:22–28.

  7. Katti CG, Mohan A. Predictability of ANB, Beta, and YEN angles as anteroposterior dysplasia indicators in Gulbarga population. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2020;54(4):321–324. doi:10.1177/0301574220912598.

  8. Doshi JR, Trivedi K, Shyagali T. Predictability of Yen angle and appraisal of various cephalometric parameters in the assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible in Angle’s Class II malocclusion. People J Sci Res. 2012;5(1):1–8.

  9. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1952;22:142–145.

  10. Wylie WL. The assessment of anteroposterior dysplasia. Angle Orthod. 1947;17(3–4):97–109.

  11. Duran GS, Dindaroğlu F, Görgülü S, Kılıç S. Inconsistency between ANB angle and Wits appraisal in the Turkish population. Turk J Orthod. 2016;29(4):103–108. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00027R1.

  12. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 1975;67(2):125–138. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2.

  13. Sundareswaran S, Kumar V. Reliability of Beta angle in assessing true anteroposterior apical base discrepancy in different growth patterns. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2015;6(1):125–130. doi:10.4103/0976-9668.149109.

  14. Kumari P, Jain AK, Sahu A, Prasad RR, Singh S, Roy S. Predictability of Wits appraisal, ANB, Beta, Yen, W, µ and Pi angle as indicators of anteroposterior dysplasia in Jharkhand population. Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics. 2023;7(2):79–89.

  15. Mude NK, Irfan G, Virupakshappa D, Bharisharanesha R, Chatterjee S, Kashwani R. Assessing sagittal discrepancies using beta angle, ANB angle and WITS appraisal: a cephalometric study. Bioinformation. 2025;21(11):4173–4178. doi:10.6026/973206300214173.

  16. Mittal A, Bohra S, Murali PS, Saidath K, Krishnanayak US. An evaluation of YEN and W angle in the assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. J Int Oral Health. 2016;8(6):720–724.

  17. Gupta AK, Kumar A, Ashraf K, Hussain K, Kumar A, Kulshrestha R. Establishment of cephalometric norms of Yen, W and Beta angle with assessment of sagittal jaw relationship in Eastern Indian population. Indian J Orthod Dentofacial Res. 2019;5(2):63–69.

  18. Roy P, Nambiar S, Unnikrishnan B, Desai A, Suresh C. Assessment of sagittal skeletal base relationship of maxilla and mandible by horizontal appraisal method, a comparative and reliability study. J Orofacial Sci. 2018;10(2):80–85.