Aylin PAŞAOĞLU, Yağmur LENA, SERVET DOĞAN

Üst Keser Konumunun Yumuşak Doku Parametreleri Üzerine Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Üst keser diş konumu, ortodontik tanı ve tedavi planlamasında en önemli parametrelerden birini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, üst keser diş konumunun yumuşak doku parametreleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Yöntem: Bu çalışmada, Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'na tedavi amacıyla başvuran, 15-18 yaşları arasındaki 45 kız ve 45 erkek hastanın tedavi öncesi sefalometrik filmleri kullanıldı. Üst keser diş aksının Sella-Nasion düzlemi ile yaptığı açı (U1-SN) esas alınarak, 30 hastadan oluşan (15kız-15erkek) 3 grup oluşturuldu (G1: kontrol, G2: protrusiv, G3: retrusiv). Lateral sefalometrik filmler üzerinde dişsel, iskeletsel ve yumuşak doku referans noktaları işaretlenerek, Arnett yumuşak doku sefalometrik analizi Dolphin, version 11.5 (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Los Angeles, California, USA) yazılımı kullanılarak yapıldı. İstatistiksel değerlendirmeler için tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA),bağımsız örneklem t-testi ve Pearson korelasyon katsayısı kullanıldı. Bulgular: G2 grubunda üst dudak kalınlığı, üst keser projeksiyonu; G3 grubunda Mx1-oklüzal düzlem açısı değerlerinin cinsiyet farkından etkilendiği gözlendi (p

The Effect of Upper Incisor Position on Soft Tissue Parameters

Introductıon: The relationship between upper incisor position and soft tissue parameters is one of the most important topic in diagnosis and treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative importance of facial profile parameters in relation to upper incisor position. Methods: The cephalometric radiographs were obtained from 90 patients (ages 15-18 years). Radiographs were divided into 3 groups each consisted of 30 patients according to upper incisor inclination (G1: control, G2: protrusive, G3: retrusive). Soft tissue cephalometric measurements were made by using Dolphin imaging 11.5 software (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, California,USA). One-way ANOVA,independent samples t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient were used for statistical evaluation. Results: It was observed that upper lip thickness, upper incisor projection values in group G2;Mx1-occlusal plane angle values in G3 group were affected by gender difference (p <0.05). The measurement of upper lip angle differs between groups of male individuals (p <0.05). Nasal projection measurements were found higher in male subjects. Nasolabial angle value correlates strongly with upper lip angle and upper lip thickness (r= -0.651, r = -0.335). Conclusıon: Soft tissue measurements should be considered during diagnosis and treatment planning. This knowledge will help in assessing the estimation of facial profile in the end of the treatment.

PDF

___

1. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planningpart I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:299-312.
2. Arnett G W, Bergman R T. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning
3. Angle EH. Treatment of the malocclusion of the teeth. Philadelphia: SS White Manufacturing; 1907.
4. Bergmana RT, Waschakb J, Farahanic AB, Murphyd NC. Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84(1):48-55.
5. Burstone CJ. Soft tissue factors in treatment planning: translations of the 3rd IOC. Great Britain: Crosby Lockwood Staples Frogmore St. Albans Herts; 1975. 26-34.
6. Hambleton RS. The soft-tissue covering of the skeletal face as related to orthodontic problems. Am J Orthod 1964;50:405-20.
7. Powell SJ, Rayson RK. The profile in facial aesthetics. Br J Orthod 1976;3:207-15.
8. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57:132-44.
9. Peck S, Peck H. The aesthetically pleasing face: An orthodontic myth. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1971;47:175-84.
10. Broadbent B H. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1:45-66
11. Steiner C C. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod. 1959;29:8-29.
12. Ricketts R M, Roth R H, Chaconos S J, Schulhof R J, Engle G A. Orthodontic diagnosis planning . Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver. 1982
13. Burstone C J. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1967;53:262-284.
14. Tweed C H. Indications for extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery. 1944;30:405-428.
15. Riedel R A. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1957;43:103-119.
16. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning: part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:1-28.
17. Holdaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod 1984;85:279-93.
18. Arnett GW, McLaughlin RP, Facial and Dental Planning for Orthodontists and Oral Surgeons, 1sted. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2005.
19. Arnett GW et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 239-253.
20. Sarver D M, Proffit W R 2005 Special considerations in diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Graber T M, Vanarsdall R L, Vig K W L (eds.).Orthodontics: current principles and techniques, 4th edn. ElsevierMosby, St Louis, pp. 18-25. 43-55
21. Işıksal E, Hazar S, Akyalçın S. Smile esthetics: perception and comparison of treated and untreated smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:8-16.
22. Ghaleb N, Bouserhal J, Nassif NB. Aesthetic evaluation of profile incisor inclination. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2011;33(3):228-35.
23. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(3):366-72.
24. Spradley F L, Jacobs J, Crowe D P. Assessment of the anteroposterior soft tissue contour of the lower facial third in the ideal young adult. American Journal of Orthodontics 1981;79:316- 325.
25. Malkoc S, Demir A, Uysal T, Canbuldu N. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:174-9.
26. Arnett G W, Gunson J G. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2004;126:290-295.
27. Lundström A, Forsberg CM, Peck S, McWilliam J. A proportional analysis of soft tissue facial profile in young adults with normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1992;62:127-33.
28. Uysal T, Yagci A, Basciftci FA, Sisman Y. Standards of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning in Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:449-456.
29. Lundström A, Lundström F. Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:244- 7.
30. Bergman R T. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1999;116:373-389.
31. Subtelny J. D. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. The American Journal of Orthodontics. 1959;45(7):481-507.
32. Genecov J. S., Sinclair P. M., Dechow P. C. Development of the nose and soft tissue profile. Angle Orthodontist. 1990;60(3):191-198.
33. Mamandras A. H. Linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular lips. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1988;94(5):405-410.
34. Bishara S. E., Jakobsen J. R., Hession T. J., Treder J. E. Soft tissue profile changes from 5 to 45 years of age. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1998;114(6):698-706.
35. 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. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016;38(1):1-9.
36. Naini FB. Facial aesthetics concepts and clinical diagnosis. Oxford, United Kingdom: WileyBlackwell; 2011.
37. Ledezma LK, Naini FB. Prospective assessment of maxillary advancement effects: Maxillary incisor exposure, and upper lip and nasal changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:454-64.
38. Toth EK, Oliver DR, Hudson JM, Kim KB. Relationships between soft tissues in a posed smile and vertical cephalometric skeletal measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:378- 85.