Korean J Orthod.  2012 Feb;42(1):23-31.

Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference?

• Kamak H
• Celikoglu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to determine the soft tissue thickness of male and female orthodontic patients with different skeletal malocclusions.
METHODS
Soft tissue thickness measurements were made on lateral cephalometric radiographs of 180 healthy orthodontic patients with different skeletal malocclusions (Class I: 60 subjects, Class II: 60 subjects, Class III: 60 subjects). Ten measurements were analyzed. For statistical evaluation, one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed. Least significant difference (LSD) and Dunnet T3 post hoc tests were used to determine the individual differences.
RESULTS
Soft tissue thicknesses were found to be greater for men than for women. Statistically significant differences among the skeletal groups were found in both men and women at the following sites: labrale superius, stomion, and labrale inferius. The thickness at the labrale superius and stomion points in each skeletal type was the greatest in Class III for both men and women. On the other hand, at the labrale inferius point, for both men and women, soft tissue depth was the least in Class III and the greatest in Class II.
CONCLUSIONS
Soft tissue thickness differences among skeletal malocclusions were observed at the labrale superius, stomion, and labrale inferius sites for both men and women.

Keyword

Facial profile; Soft tissue thickness; Skeletal malocclusions; Cephalometrics

MeSH Terms

Female
Hand
Humans
Male
Malocclusion

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 The measurement points used in the study: 1, glabella (G); 2, nasion (N); 3, rhinion (Rhi); 4, subnasale (Sn); 5, labrale superius (Ls); ,6, stomion (Sto); 7, labrale inferius (Li); 8, labiomentale (Labm); 9, pogonion (Pog); and 10, gnathion (Gn). Points 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 were perpendicular to FHP or to the bony surface. The remaining points were measured as follows: point; 4, the distance between point A and subnasale; 5, the distance between prosthion and labrale superious; 6, the shortest distance between the upper incisor and the attachment points of the upper and lower lip; 7, the distance between infradentale and the vermilion border of the lower lip; 8, the distance between point B and the deepest point of the labiomental crease. FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane.

Reference

1. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993. 103:395–411.

2. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993. 103:299–312.

3. Miyajima K, McNamara JA Jr, Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 110:431–438.

4. Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod. 2002. 72:72–80.

5. Bacon W, Girardin P, Turlot JC. A comparison of cephalometric norms for the African Bantu and a caucasoid population. Eur J Orthod. 1983. 5:233–240.

6. Cooke MS, Wei SH. Cephalometric standards for the Southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod. 1988. 10:264–272.

7. Nanda R, Nanda RS. Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of North Indians. Angle Orthod. 1969. 39:22–28.

8. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Anatolian Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 123:395–400.

9. 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.e1–109.e6.

10. 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.e1–165.e5.

11. Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM. Soft tissue profile 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.

12. Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM, Erbay SK. Soft tissue profile 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.

13. Gazilerli U. The Steiner norms between 13-16 years old Turkish children with the normal occlusion on the region of Ankara (master thesis). 1976. Turkey: Ankara University.

14. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983. 84:1–28.

15. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:279–293.

16. Celikoglu M, Kazanci F, Miloglu O, Oztek O, Kamak H, Ceylan I. Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010. 15:e797–e801.

17. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983. 83:382–390.

18. Arnett GW, Gunson MJ. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 126:290–295.

19. 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.

20. Kalha AS, Latif A, Govardhan SN. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in a South Indian ethnic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 133:876–881.

21. Hamdan AM. Soft tissue morphology of Jordanian adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2010. 80:80–85.