Cephalometric Differences In Male And Female Characteristics of Facial Soft Tissue Thickness In Various Orthodontic Malocclusions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i2.8422Keywords:
Cephalometric data, Facial soft tissue thickness, Skeletal patterns, Soft tissue thicknessAbstract
Objective: To compare the mean facial soft tissue thickness between males and females in different malocclusion groups.
Study Design: Cross-Sectional Study.
Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jan 2020 to Jan 2021.
Methodology: Cephalometric radiographs of 230 patients were used to measure soft tissue thickness at seven landmarks: the glabella, subnasal region, labrale superius, labrale inferius, sulcus labrale superius, labiomentalis, and soft tissue chin.
Results: Of 230 patients, 39% were of Class I, 21% of Class II/1, 26% of Class II/2 and 13% of Class III. The gender ratio was the same in all skeletal classes. The mean age of 230 patients was 18.36±2.29 years. The mean ANB angle and UI were 4.02±3.22 and 25.95±8.86. The mean ANB angle and UI significantly differed between skeletal classes. In contrast, the mean age of patients of different skeletal classes was not significantly different, with a p-value of 0.433. The mean FSTT measured from subnasal area (A-NS), sulcus labrale superius (RR-SLS), labrale superius (J-LS), labrale inferius (I-Li) and chin (Pg-Pg1) was significantly different between skeletal classes (p value <0.001).
Conclusion: The facial soft tissue thickness was thicker in class III. The FST measured through the labrale superius (J-LS) of male patients was thicker than that of female patients in all skeletal class patients.
Downloads
References
Bueller H. Ideal facial relationships and goals. Facial Plast Surg
; 34(5): 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1669401
Murphy C, Kearns G, Sleeman D, Cronin M, Allen PF. The
clinical relevance of orthognathic surgery on quality of life. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 40(9): 926–930.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.04.001
Cunningham SJ, Jones SP, Hodges SJ, Horrocks EN, Hunt NP,
Moseley HC, et al. Advances in orthodontics. Prim Dent Care
; 9(1): 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1308/135576102322547458
Proffit WR. The soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis
and treatment planning: a new view for a new century. J Esthet
Dent 2000; 12(1): 46-49.
Mona SKS, Kumar MK, Madhur V. Paradigm shift in
orthodontics. Sch J Dent Sci 2021; 8(1): 4–13.
https://doi.org/10.36347/sjds.2021.v08i01.002
Stephan CN, Sievwright E. Facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT)
estimation models-And the strength of correlations between
craniometric dimensions and FSTTs. Forensic Sci Int 2018; 286:
–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.03.011
Stephan CN, Simpson EK, Byrd JE. Facial soft tissue depth
statistics and enhanced point estimators for craniofacial
identification: The debut of the shorth and the 75-shormax. J
Forensic Sci 2013; 58(6): 1439–1457.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12252
Yu HJ, Cho SR, Kim MJ, Kim WH, Kim JW, Choi J. Automated
skeletal classification with lateral cephalometry based on
artificial intelligence. J Dent Res 2020; 99(3): 249–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034520901715
Jeelani W, Fida M, Shaikh A. Facial soft tissue thickness among
three skeletal classes in adult Pakistani subjects. J Forensic Sci
; 60(6): 1420–1425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12851
Gibelli D, Collini F, Porta D, Zago M, Dolci C, Cattaneo C, et al.
Variations of midfacial soft-tissue thickness in subjects aged
between 6 and 18years for the reconstruction of the profile: A
study on an Italian sample. Leg Med 2016; 22: 68-74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2016.08.005
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–
https://doi.org/10.12659%2FMSM.907485
Kuyl MH, Verbeeck RM, Dermaut LR. The integumental profile:
a reflection of the underlying skeletal configuration? Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106(6): 597–604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(94)70084-2
Park J-H, Hong J-Y, Ahn H-W, Kim S-J. Correlation between
periodontal soft tissue and hard tissue surrounding incisors in
skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod. 2018; 88(1): 91–99.
https://doi.org/10.2319/060117-367.1
Khan MU, Somaiah S, Muddaiah S, Shetty B, Reddy G,
Siddegowda R. Comparison of soft tissue chin thickness in adult
patients with various mandibular divergence patterns in
Kodava population. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2017; 8(2): 51.
Jaradat M. An overview of class III malocclusion (prevalence,
etiology and management). J Adv Med Med Res 2018; 25(7): 1–
http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/JAMMR/2018/39927
Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, Kibayashi K. Facial soft
tissue thickness differences among three skeletal classes in
Japanese population. Forensic Sci Int. 2014; 236: 175–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.040
Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among
skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod
; 42(1): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.4041%2Fkjod.2012.42.1.23
Hamid S, Abuaffan AH. Facial soft tissue thickness in a sample
of Sudanese adults with different occlusions. Forensic Sci Int
; 266: 209–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.05.018
Eftekhari-Moghadam AR, Latifi SM, Nazifi HR, Rezaian J.
Influence of sex and body mass index on facial soft tissue
thickness measurements in an adult population of southwest of
Iran. Surg Radiol Anat 2020; 42(5): 627-633.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
