Comparisons of Soft Tissue Thickness Measurements in Adult Patients With Various Vertical Patterns

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Holdaway analizi ve yumuşak doku kalınlık ölçümleri kullanılarak farklı vertikal paternlerde yumuşak doku profilini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Doksan hastadan oluşan çalışma grubu SN/GoGn açısı kullanılarak vertikal gelişim paternine göre 3 gruba ayrıldı (hiperdiverjan>37°; hipodiverjan

Farklı Vertikal Paternlere Sahip Bireylerde Yumuşak Doku Kalınlıklarının Değerlendirilmesi

Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate to study soft tissue facial profile among the different vertical patterns using the Holdaway analysis and the soft tissue thickness measurements. MaterialsandMethods: The study sample consisted of 90 patients divided into 3 groups: low angle group (30 patients; mean age, 20.38±3.76 years), normal angle group (30 patients; mean age, 19.36±2.83 years) and high angle group (30 patients; mean age, 19.44±2.14 years). The study sample, comprised a total of 90 patients (54 women and 36 men) divided into low-angle, normal-angle and high angle groups based on vertical growth pattern using the SN/GoGn angle (high-angle group >37°; low-angle group <27°; and control group or normal angle group 2737°). Facial soft-tissue thickness and Holdaway measurements were analyzed on each radiograph with Image J programme. One-way analysis of variance and post-hoc test (Tukey) were used to compare Holdaway measurements and soft tissue thicknesses among the three groups. Results: Significant differences among vertical patterns were observed for the 'gnathion', 'menton', 'stomion' and 'inferior sulcus to H line' when both genders were combined. These measurements were thinner in the high-angle group. Significant differences among vertical patterns were observed for 'gnathion' and 'lower lip to H line' in women; for 'stomion' and 'nose prominence' in men when examined separately.Conclusion: Facial soft tissue measurements except some for in high angle group were thinner than in low angle group. All soft tissue measurements were greater except for gnathion in low angle group in men than in women.

PDF

___

1. Fields HW, Proffit WR, Nixon WL, Phillips C, Stanek E. Facial pattern differences in long-faced children and adults. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 217-23.
2. Opdebeeck H, Bell WH. The short face syndrome. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 499-511.
3. Edgerton VR. Neuromuscular adaptation to power and endurance work. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1976; 1: 49-58.
4. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Nixon WL. Occlusal forces in normal- and longface adults. J Dent Res 1983; 62: 566-70.
5. Garner LD. Soft tissue changes concurrent with orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1974; 66: 367-77.
6. Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957; 27: 14-37.
7. Holdaway RA. Changes in relationship of points A and B during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1956; 42: 176-93.
8. Burstone CJ. Integumental contour and extension patterns. Angle Orthod 1959; 23: 146-57.
9. Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, Yoshino M, Miyazawa H, Inoue K. Facial sof tissue thickness in Japanese children. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 199: 109.
10. Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, Yoshino M, Oohigashi S, Miyazawa H, et al. Pilot study of facial sof tissue thickness differences among three skeletal classes in Japanese females. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 195: 165.
11. Bascifci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Anatolian Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 395-400.
12. Erbay EF, Caniklioğlu CM. Sof tissue profle in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 65-72.
13. Erbay EF, Caniklioğlu CM, Erbay SK. Soft tissue profle in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part I. Evaluation of horizontal lip position using different soft tissue analyses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 57-64.
14. Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod 2012; 42: 23-31.
15. Holdaway RA. Soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1983; 84: 1-28.
16. Macari AT, Hanna AE. Comparisons of soft tissue chin thickness in adult patients with various mandibular divergence patterns. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 708-14.
17. 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 2015; 85: 211-7.
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. Celikoglu M, Buyuk SK, Sekerci AE, Ersoz M, Celik S, Sisman Y. Facial softtissue thickness in patients affected by bilateral cleft lip and palate: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146: 573-8.
20. Hamdan AM. Soft tissue morphology of Jordanian adolescents. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 80-5.
21. 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.
22. Cha KS. Soft-tissue thickness of South Korean adults with normal facial profiles. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43: 178-85.
23. Taki AA, Oguz F, Abuhijleh E. Facial soft tissue values in Persian adults with normal occlusion and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 491-4.
24. Baum AT. Age and sex differences in the dentofacial changes following orthodontic treatment and their significance in treat-ment planning. Am J Orthod 1961; 47: 355-69.
25. Hajighadimi M, Dougherty HL, Garakani F. Cephalometric evaluation of Iranian children and its comparison with Tweed's and Steiner's standards. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 192-7.