{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04283164782867341, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02379535990481856, 'mean_word_length': 5.072202166064982, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 9, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ethnic differences in craniofacial and upper spine morphology in children with skeletal Class II malocclusion.

OBJECTIVES
To analyze differences in upper cervical spine and craniofacial morphology, including posterior cranial fossa and growth prediction signs, between Danish and South Korean pre-orthodontic skeletal Class II children and to analyze associations between upper cervical spine morphology and craniofacial characteristics.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred forty-six skeletal Class II children-93 Danes (54 boys and 39 girls, mean age 12.2 years) and 53 Koreans (27 boys and 26 girls, mean age 10.8 years)-were included. Upper spine morphology, Atlas dimensions, and craniofacial morphology, including posterior cranial fossa and growth prediction signs, were assessed on lateral cephalograms. Differences and associations were analyzed by multiple linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age and gender.


RESULTS
Significant differences between the ethnic groups were found in the sagittal and vertical craniofacial dimensions ( P < .001), mandibular shape ( P < .01), dental relationship ( P < .01), posterior cranial fossa ( P < .05), and growth prediction signs ( P < .001). No significant differences were found in upper spine morphology and Atlas dimensions between the groups. Upper spine morphology/dimensions were significantly associated with the cranial base angle ( P < .01), sagittal craniofacial dimensions ( P < .001), posterior cranial fossa ( P < .001), and growth prediction signs ( P < .05).


CONCLUSIONS
Upper spine morphology/dimensions may be valuable as predictive factors in treatment planning for growing Class II children.