Principles of frontal reconstruction

Dickinson, John T.; Cipcic, Joseph A.; Kamerer, Donald B.

doi:10.1288/00005537-196906000-00001

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…52 Frontal bone is one of the strongest structures in the face. 53 Frontal bone fracture is rare because it is more resistant to mechanical forces than other maxillofacial bones. However, motor vehicle accidents, gunshot, assault or falls could cause frontal bone fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Forehead Aesthetics With Frontal Sinus Size and Skeletal Malocclusions

Camcı

2020

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Forehead inclination and aesthetics have received very limited attention, although forehead is critically important in obtaining total facial aesthetics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between frontal sinus fields, forehead morphology and skeletal malocclusion.Materials and Methods: A total of 224 extraoral lateral photographs and cephalometric radiographs from skeletal class I, class II and class III patients in post-pubertal period were investigated. Extraoral photographs and cephalometric radiographs were superimposed for each patient before measurements. The photographs were evaluated in three groups: Group A: Skeletal Class I malocclusions (n=85), Group B: Skeletal Class II malocclusions (n=74), Group C: Skeletal Class III malocclusions (n=65). All subjects from the three groups were classified according to the types of the foreheads, and then on the photographs, four different angle measurements (A1, A2, A3, A4) were performed. In addition, the frontal sinus (FS) fields were calculated using the RadiAnt Dicom Viewer (Beta version) on cephalometric and posterior-anterior radiographs. One-way ANOVA, Chisquare, and Student t tests were used for statistical evaluation.Results: No significant relationships between the skeletal malocclusions and the forehead types were seen. In Group C, the FS fields and A2 angles were higher than in the other groups. No gender-related variations were detected for any measurements. Conclusions:There was a limited correlation between malocclusions, frontal sinus and forehead morphology. Gender was not an element that creates morphological differences in forehead aesthetics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Forehead Aesthetics With Frontal Sinus Size and Skeletal Malocclusions

Camcı

2020

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently the selection and duration of antibiotic treatment must remain empirical because no studies have been performed to determine optimal management. Reconstruction of the cranial defect, however, is a more contentious area and many different primary and secondary approaches have been used 2 , 3 , 24 –27 . Aesthetics is an important factor when deciding on appropriate reconstruction, considering that this disease usually occurs in children and adolescents 5 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pott’s Puffy Tumour: A Clinical Variant

Clark

Lim

Poole

1999

Aust. N.Z. J. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Donor site morbidity, including temporal hollowing and trismus, is unacceptable. [37] Autogenous bone graft for FS obliteration was first described in 1969 [50]. Since then, cancellous bone grafts, most often harvested from the ilium, have been widely used as a filler material.…”

Section: Obliteration Of the Frontal Sinusmentioning

confidence: 99%