Changes in facial dimensions and relationships between the ages of 5 and 25 years

Bishara, Samir E.; Peterson, Lawrence C.; Bishara, Edward C.

doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90063-0

Cited by 147 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall pattern of changes was similar to those seen in previous studies. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Soft tissue variables showed three distinct patterns of change. Some traits increased in size with growth, such as nasal projection, lower face height, chin projection, chin-throat length, upper and lower lip thickness, upper lip length, and lower lip-chin length.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years

Bergman

Waschak²,

Borzabadi‐Farahani

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To study the longitudinal changes in 19 soft tissue cephalometric traits (according to the Bergman cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis). Materials and Methods: Cephalograms and photographs of 40 subjects (20 male, 20 female, from the Burlington Growth Centre) that were obtained at ages 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years were used. Subjects were orthodontically untreated whites and had Class I dentoskeletal relationships (ideal overjet and overbite). Images were obtained with the lips in a relaxed position or lightly touching. Results: Three groups of soft tissue traits were identified: (1) traits that increased in size with growth (nasal projection, lower face height, chin projection, chin-throat length, upper and lower lip thickness, upper lip length, and lower lip-chin length); (2) traits that decreased in size with growth (interlabial gap and mandibular sulcus contour [only in females]); and (3) traits that remained relatively constant during growth (facial profile angle, nasolabial angle, lower face percentage, chin-throat/lower face height percentage, lower face-throat angle, upper incisor exposure, maxillary sulcus contour, and upper and lower lip protrusion). Conclusion: Current findings identify areas of growth and change in individuals with Class I skeletal and dental relationships with ideal overjet and overbite and should be considered during treatment planning of orthodontic and orthognathic patients. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:48-55.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years

Bergman

Waschak²,

Borzabadi‐Farahani

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soft tissue changes have been shown to accompany growth, orthodontic treatment as well as orthognathic or plastic surgery. [1][2][3][4][5]7,11,12,14,15,19,20,24,25,28,31,32 It is for these reasons that the soft tissue profile must be carefully examined before a decision regarding orthodontic treatment and/or orthognathic surgery can be made. Review of the nasolabial soft tissue is important when contemplating orthodontic treatment since movement of the maxillary incisor in any of the three planes of space influences this area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Nasolabial Angle and the Relative Inclinations of the Nose and Upper Lip

Nandini¹,

Prashanth²,

Somiah³

et al. 2011

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esthetics is one of the major motivating factors for patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Hard tissue and soft tissue drape both determine the facial esthetics. The structures in this region are so variable that the nasolabial angle (NLA) has been drawn differently by various investigators. Variations can lead to erroneous conclusions in orthodontic diagnosis. Aims and objectives:The study was done to evaluate a reliable method of constructing the nasolabial angle (NLA) and to correlate the soft tissue profile parameters with one another. Materials and methods:Lateral cephalogram of 50 randomly selected adult patients were taken. The tracings were made and 10 copies of each tracing were randomly distributed to 10 different orthodontists to draw the NLA. Results:Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) showed both N/ FH and L/FH angles to have significant p values when compared with NLA. The regression analysis showed that the nasolabial angle can be calculated for any given value of N/FH or L/FH by the formula: NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). The mean value of N/FH was 17.42° ± 8.40° and L/FH was 80.68° + 6.45° for this sample. Inter examiner reliability calculated by repeated measures of ANOVA and Dahlerg's formula showed high degree of reliability and reproducibility of the method.Clinical significance: NLA can be predicted for any given value of N/FH and L/FH. NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). If an individual has either N/FH or L/FH in the normal range but not the NLA then one could calculate the correct NLA using this formula. Thereby the NLA can be brought within the normal range by altering the other nasolabial parameters by correct treatment planning. Since the nasolabial angle plays a vital role in profile esthetics of a person, the clinician should place greater emphasis in evaluating this area and plan treatment mechanics to place this angle within the accepted normal variation.

show abstract

“…4,7,8,11,19 The fact that upper lip behavior is so complex would help to explain the present findings as well as the previously proposed contention that the behavior of the midfacial tissues shows considerably greater independence of the underlying hard tissue changes than those within the lower face. Despite the fact that it has previously been accepted that considerable upper lip retraction will necessarily follow upper incisor retraction, 18,25,[32][33][34] it is now widely recognized that the complex functional musculoskeletal anatomy of the nose/upper lip complex contributes to the observed wide variability of upper lip change with premolar extraction treatment. 5,6,16,30 Simplistic ratios of lip response to upper incisor movement would therefore seem to be of limited value for application to treatment planning in individual subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incisal and Soft Tissue Effects of Maxillary Premolar Extraction in Class II Treatment

Tadic

Woods

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This retrospective study was designed to show likely upper incisal and soft tissue lip changes accompanying Class II fixed appliance treatment with only two upper premolar extractions and to assess whether the lips, especially, are predictably and directly affected with such treatment. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms and study casts from 61 growing Class II patients (aged 11 to 18 years; 39 division 1 and 22 division 2) were assessed. Upper and lower lip curve depths, nasolabial angle, and upper incisal position and angulation were all assessed and compared with changes in other cephalometric variables. Results: A wide range of individual response in both lip and upper incisor behavior were noted. The observed soft tissue lip changes were most likely to be related to the preexisting morphology of the lips themselves, while upper incisal changes were mainly related to their own pretreatment positions and changes occurring with treatment in the underlying bony structures. Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment involving the extractions of only two upper premolars is likely to result in a wide range of variation in lip and upper incisor behavior. The preexisting soft tissue morphology is likely to be the greatest determinant of lip behavior.

show abstract

Changes in facial dimensions and relationships between the ages of 5 and 25 years

Cited by 147 publications

References 12 publications

Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years

Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years

An Evaluation of Nasolabial Angle and the Relative Inclinations of the Nose and Upper Lip

Incisal and Soft Tissue Effects of Maxillary Premolar Extraction in Class II Treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About