Aylin PAŞAOĞLU BOZKURT, Yağmur Lena SEZİCİ, Servet DOĞAN

Farklı iskeletsel malokluzyona sahip adolesan bireylerde yumuşak doku kalınlıklarının değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, farklı malokluzyonlara sahip bireylerde yüze ait yumuşak doku kalınlık ölçümlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem: Üniversitesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı’na tedavi olmak amacıyla başvurmuş, normodiverjant büyüme paternine sahip 120 bireyin (60 erkek; yaş ortalaması 14,4±1,2 yıl, 60 kadın; yaş ortalaması 15,04±0,8 yıl) lateral sefalometrik röntgenleri kullanılmıştır. Röntgenler, sagittal malokluzyon tipine göre üç gruba ayrılmıştır: Sınıf I, Sınıf II ve Sınıf III. Referans düzlemi Arnett ve McLaughlin tarafından tanımlandığı şekilde belirlenmiş ve Dolphin Imaging 11.5 Software Programı kullanılarak 16 çizgisel ölçüm yapılmıştır. İstatistiksel değerlendirme için, one-way ANOVA, gruplar arası farklılıkları belirlemek amacıyla ise Bonferonni post hoc testi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Tüm kalınlık ölçümleri erkeklerde kadınlardan daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar, hem kadınlar hem de erkeklerde, alt dudak uzunluğu, alt dudak çene ucu arası mesafe ve mandibular keser çene ucu arası mesafe ölçümlerinde görülmüştür. Alt dudak uzunluğu ve mandibular keser dişin çeneye olan mesafesi Sınıf III grubunda en yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Alt dudak uzunluğu, alt dudak ve mandibular keser dişin çene ucuna olan mesafeleri her iki cinsiyet için de malokluzyon gruplarına göre farklılık göstermektedir. Yumuşak doku kalınlıkları profili ve estetiği etkilediğinden, iskeletsel malokluzyonlar arasındaki bu farklılıklar hem planlama sırasında hem de tedavi döneminde dikkate alınmalıdır.

Assessment of the facial soft tissue thickness in adolescent patients with different skeletal malocclusions

Objectives:To evaluate and compare the facial soft tissue thickness values of patients with different types of malocclusion. Methods:The study sample consisted of lateral cephalometric radiographs of 120 adolescent patients (60 men; mean age 14.4±1.2 years, 60 women; mean age 15.04±0.8 years) with normodivergent growth pattern, divided into three groups according to the sagittal malocclusions: Class I, Class II, and Class III. The reference line was identified according to definitions by Arnett and McLaughlin, and 16 linear measurements were analyzed by using Dolphin Imaging 11.5 Software Program. For statistical evaluation, one-way ANOVA and Bonferonni post hoc test were used. Results:All facial soft tissue thickness measurements were found to be greater for men. Statistically significant differences among the groups were found in both women and men at the following measurements: lower lip length, lower lip to chin and mandibular incisor to chin. The lower lip length and mandibular incisor to chin was the greatest in Class III group. Conclusion:Soft tissue thickness differences among skeletal malocclusions were observed at the lower lip length, lower lip to chin and mandibular incisor to chin measurements for both genders. The differences among skeletal malocclusions should be taken into consideration both during planning and the treatment period.

PDF

___

1. Gomez Y, Zamora N, Tarazona B, Bellot-Arcís C, Paredes-Gallardo V. Cross-sectional human study of soft tissue chin (STC) thickness in adult patients in relation to sex, facial pattern and skeletal class. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1205-1211.
2. Almurtadha RH, Alhammadi MS, Fayed MMS, Abou-El-Ezz A, Halboub E. Changes in Soft Tissue Profile After Orthodontic Treatment With and Without Extraction: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018;18:193-202.
3. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:13.
4. Macari AT, Hanna AE. Comparisons of soft tissue chin thickness in adult patients with various mandibular divergence patterns. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:708-714.
5. Perović T, Blažej Z. Male and Female Characteristics of Facial Soft Tissue Thickness in Different Orthodontic Malocclusions Evaluated by Cephalometric Radiography. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:3415-3424.
6. Storms AS, Miclotte A, Grosjean L et al. Shortterm hard and soft tissue changes after mandibular advancement surgery in Class II patients: a retrospective cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39:567-576.
7. Pavoni C, Gazzani F, Franchi L, Loberto S, Lione R, Cozza P. Soft tissue facial profile in Class III malocclusion: long-term post-pubertal effects produced by the Face Mask Protocol. Eur J Orthod. 2019;41:531-536.
8. Aras I, Olmez S, Akay MC, Gunbay T, Aras A. The effects of maxillary expansion on the soft tissue facial profile. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51:1-10.
9. Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod. 2012;42:23-31.
10. Kozanecka A, Sarul M, Kawala B, AntoszewskaSmith J. Objectification of Orthodontic Treatment Needs: Does the Classification of Malocclusions or a History of Orthodontic Treatment Matter? Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016;25:1303-1312.
11. Ülgen M. Anomaliler, sefalometri, etioloji, büyüme ve gelişim, tanı. 8.baskı, Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayınları, Türkiye, 2015.
12. Yashwant VA, K R, Arumugam E. Comparative evaluation of soft tissue changes in Class I borderline patients treated with extraction and nonextraction modalities. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016;21:50-59.
13. Buyuk SK, Genc E, Simsek H, Karaman A. Analysis of facial soft tissue values and cranial skeletal widths in different body mass index percentile adolescent subjects. Cranio. 2019 ;37:223-230.
14. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:395-411.
15. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:299-312.
16. Arnett GW, Gunson MJ. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126: 290-5.
17. Primozic J, Perinetti G, Contardo L, Ovsenik M. Facial soft tissue changes during the pre-pubertal and pubertal growth phase: a mixed longitudinal laser-scanning study. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39:52-60.
18. Uysal T, Yagci A, Basciftci FA, Sisman Y. Standards of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning in Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:449-56.
19. Kalha AS, Latif A, Govardhan SN. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in a South Indian ethnic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:876-81.
20. Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, Yoshino M, Miyazawa H, Inoue K. Facial soft tissue thickness in Japanese children. Forensic Sci Int 2010;199:109. e1-6.
21. Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, Yoshino M, Oohigashi S, Miyazawa H, et al. Pilot study of facial soft tissue thickness differences among three skeletal classes in Japanese females. Forensic Sci Int 2010;195:165.e1-5.
22. Paşaoğlu A, Lena Y, Doğan S. Üst keser konumunun yumuşak doku parametreleri üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2017; 38_1: 39-47.
23. Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod. 2012;42:23-31.
24. Leonard MB, Shults J, Wilson BA, Tershakovec AM, Zemel BS. Obesity during childhood and adolescence augments bone mass and bone dimensions. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:514-523.