medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2017, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2017; 5 (3)

Proposition of two cephalometric angles for assessing lip position

Miranda SÁE, Vera SME

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 160-164
PDF size: 265.85 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted in order to propose two angles for the assessment of the anteroposterior position of the upper and lower lips, taking as a reference stable bone structures thus avoiding soft tissue reference points that vary according to age such as the nose and chin. Material and methods: 114 lateral headfilms from skeletal class I, II and III patients were traced. The proposed angles were measured. For the upper lip (LSMx), the palatal plane and the anterior nasal spine-upper stomion plane formed the angle. For the lower lip (LIMd) the angle was formed by the mandibular plane and the pogonion-lower stomion plane. Both angles were compared with the nasolabial (NSL) and the mentolabial angles (MTL) respectively. Results: A statistical t-Student test was conducted. The proposed angles for the upper and lower lip had lower standard deviations from the mean in comparison to similar angles in all three classes, especially skeletal class I: LSMx: 105.5o ± 5.5, LIMd: 88o ± 5.5, NSL: 104.1o ± 11.3 and MTL: 136.9o ± 12.4. The angle proposed for the lower lip showed a smaller standard deviation and a statistically significant difference compared to the mentolabial angle in the ANOVA test (p ‹ 0.05). Conclusions: The proposed angles for assessing lip position indicate that they have smaller deviations from the mean, in addition if there is an increase they show lip protrusion and a decrease indicates lip retrusion.


REFERENCES

  1. Bergman RT, Waschak J, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Murphy NC. Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84 (1): 48-55.

  2. Ricketts RM. Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod. 1968; 54 (4): 272-289.

  3. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46 (10): 721-735.

  4. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53 (4): 262-284.

  5. Sushner NI. A photographic study of the soft-tissue profile of the Negro population. Am J Orthod. 1977; 72 (4): 373-385.

  6. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85 (4): 279-293.

  7. Buschang PH, Fretty K, Campbell PM. Can commonly used profile planes be used to evaluate changes in lower lip position? Angle Orthod. 2011; 81 (4): 557-563.

  8. Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR, Beress A, Worley CM Jr et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116 (3): 239-253.

  9. Scheideman GB, Legan HL, Bell WH, Finn RA, Reisch JS. Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78 (4): 404-420.

  10. Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60 (3): 177-190.

  11. Pecora NG, Baccetti T, McNamara JA. The aging craniofacial complex: A longitudinal cephalometric study from late adolescence to late adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008; 134 (4): 496-505.

  12. Genecov JS, Sinclair PM, Dechow PC. Development of the nose and soft tissue profile. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60 (3): 191-198.

  13. Foley TF, Duncan PG. Soft tissue profile changes in late adolescent males. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67 (5): 373-380.

  14. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St Louis: Mosby; 2014.

  15. Bishara SE, Ortho D, Jakobsen JR. Longitudinal changes in three normal facial types. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88 (6): 466-502.

  16. Brodie AG. Late growth changes in the human face. Growth Chang. 1953; 23 (3): 146-157.

  17. Björk A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963; 42 (1) Pt 2: 400-411.

  18. Björk A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod. 1972; 62 (4): 339-383.

  19. Jacob HB, Buschang PH. Mandibular growth comparisons of class I and class II division 1 skeletofacial patterns. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84 (5): 755-761.

  20. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL VK. Orthodontics: current principles & techniques. 5th ed. Mosby; 2013.

  21. Fitzgerald JP, Nanda RS, Currier GF. An evaluation of the nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102 (4): 328-334.

  22. Kandhasamy K, Prabu NM, Sivanmalai S, Prabu PS, Philip A, Chiramel JC. Evaluation of the nasolabial angle of the Komarapalayam population. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012; 4 (Suppl 2): S313-S315.

  23. Scavone H, Zahn-Silva W, do Valle-Corotti KM, Nahás AC. Soft tissue profile in white Brazilian adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78 (1): 58-63.

  24. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A. Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75 (3): 326-332.

  25. McNamara JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984; 86 (6): 449-469.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com