RELIABILITY OF VARIOUS SKELETAL INDICATORS IN ASSESSING VERTICAL FACIAL SOFT TISSUE PATTERN

Maheen Ahmed, Attiya Shaikh, Mubassar Fida

Abstract


Background: Angle’s paradigm has ruled the orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning for past several decades, but the recent introduction of the soft tissue paradigm has significantly changed the dynamics of orthodontic practice. This study was designed to identify skeletal analyses that best correlates with the parameters use to assess facial soft tissue profile that may lead to an accurate diagnosis and efficient treatment plan. Methods: A total of 192 subjects (96 males and 96 females; mean age 22.95±4.75 years) were included in the study. The total sample was distributed into three equal groups (i.e., long, normal and short face) on the basis of soft tissue vertical pattern. Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms were used to assess various vertical linear and angular parameters. Various skeletal analyses and soft tissue parameters were correlated using the Pearson’s correlation in different vertical groups, separately for males and females. Results: In males, a weak positive correlation (r=0.485) was found between skeletal anterior facial height ratio (Sk. LAFH/TAFH) and soft tissue anterior facial height ratio (LAFH/TAFH’), whereas in females maxillary-mandibular plane angle (MMA) showed a weak positive correlation (r=0.300). In the long face group, a positive but a weak correlation (r=0.349) was present between cranial base angle (SN-GoGn) and LAFH/TAFH’. Conclusions: Skeletal analyses (MMA, Sk. LAFH/TAFH) significantly correlated to soft tissue parameters. Males and long faced individuals showed a higher correlation between skeletal and soft tissue parameters as compared to that of the females.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957;27(1):14–37.

Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966;52(11):804–22.

Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53(4):262–84.

Holdaway RA. A Soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning: Part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84(1):1–28.

Tűrkkarhraman H, Gökalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004;74(5):640–7.

Ackerman JL. Orthodontics: Art, science or transcience? Angle Orthod 1974;44(3):243–50.

Fishman LS. Individualized evaluation of facial form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(5):510–7.

Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:720–55.

Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34(10):812–40.

Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957;27(1):14–37.

Horn AJ. Facial height index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;10(2):180–6.

Jacobson A. Radiographic Cephalometry. How reliable is cephalometric prediction? Quintessence Publishing Co Inc 1995;297–8.

Paranhos LR, Brando TM, Kaieda AK, Ramos AL, Torres FC. The inadequacy of the Y-axis of Growth (SNGn) for the vertical pattern assessment in patients with sagittal discrepancies. J Contemp Dent Prac 2014;15(2):169–73.

Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103(4):299–312.

Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 1999;2(2):49–52.

Baik HS, Jeon JM, Leeb HJ. Facial soft-tissue analysis of Korean adults with normal occlusion using a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131(6):759–66.

Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod 1959;45(7):481–507.

Celikoglu M, Buyuk SK, Ekizer A, Sekerci AE, Sisman Y. Assessment of the soft tissue thickness at the lower anterior face in adult patients with different skeletal vertical patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2014;84(2):211–7.

Rizwan M, Mascarenhas R, Hussain A. Reliability of the existing vertical dysplasia indicators in assessing a definitive growth pattern. Rev Latinoam Ortod Odontopediatría 2011;1–7.

Bahrou S, Hassan AA, Khalil F. Facial proportions in different mandibular rotations in class I individuals. Int Arab J Dent 2014;5(1):9–18.

Formby WA, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Longitudinal changes in the adult facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105(5):464–76.

Opdebeeck H, Bell WH. The short face syndrome. Am J Orthod 1978;73(5):499–511.

Schendel SA, Eisenfeld J, Bell WH, Epker BN, Mishelevich DJ. The long face syndrome: vertical maxillary excess. Am J Orthod 1976;70(4):398–408.

Tweed CH. The diagnostic facial triangle in the control of treatment objectives. Am J Orthod 1969;55(6):651–7.

Jacabson A, Jacabson RL, editors. Radiographic cephalometery from basics to 3-D imaging. 2nd ed. Hanover Park. Quintessence Publishing Co; 2006.

Utomi IL. Vertical facial height and proportions of face in Hausa-Fulani children in Northern Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J 2004;11(1):32–6.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Contact Number: +92-992-382571

email: [jamc] [@] [ayubmed.edu.pk]