TY  - JOUR
TT  - Cephalometric and Photographical Evaluation of Different Nasolabial Measurement Methods
AU  - Gürses, Eren
AU  - Yagcı, Ahmet
PY  - 2017
DA  - July
JF  - Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi
JO  - JHS
PB  - Erciyes University
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1018-3655
SP  - 105
EP  - 111
VL  - 26
IS  - 2
KW  - Lateral sefalometrik radyograf
KW  - Nazolabial açı
KW  - Profil fotoğrafı
N2  - Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate soft tissue nasolabial angle measurements with different techniques on persons with ideal faces and balanced occlusions. Materials and Methods: Profile the photographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 30 Anatolian Turkish adults were evaluated. In the first method,nasolabial angle was measured between tip of nose-subnasaleupper lips. In the second method, nasolabial angle was measured between columellar plane-subnasale-upper lips. Differences between the first and the second methods, consistency between cephalometric measurements and photograph measurements were compared in obtained results. All measurements were performed with Dolphin Imaging Software (DolphinImagingand Management Solutions, Los Angeles, California,USA).SPSS program was used for t-test. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) Results: A statistically significant difference was found between first and second method in material measurements (p<0,001). While cephalometric measurements of both two methods showed 15,10±3,2° difference , it was 12,80±2,5° between photoghraphic measurements. Cephalometric and photographical measurements were statistically significant for both methods (p=0,003). Conclusions: Methods to determine nasolabial measurements gives different results. Cephalometric and photographical measurements had no difference for the same method. Repeatability of both methods is very high. It is indicated that photographic measurements had lower differences comparing to cephalometric measurements. All values measured with photographic method were significantly higher. This indicates that cephalometric radioghraphs does not reflect some soft tissue parts.
CR  - 1. Uysal T, Yağcı A, Başçiftçi FA, Şişman Y. Standarts
of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning
in Turkish Adults. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31:449–456.
CR  - 2. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to
planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1960; 46:721–735.
CR  - 3. Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of
the facial patternand an estimate of its growth.
Angle Orthod 1957; 27:14–37.
CR  - 4. Burstone CJ. Lipposture and its significance in
treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1967; 53:262–284.
CR  - 5. Arnett GW, McLaughlin RP. Facial and dental
planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126:290-295.
CR  - 6. Dağsuyu İM, Baydaş B. Sınıf II bölüm 1
maloklüzyonlu bireylerde fonksiyonel ortopedik
tedavi etkilerinin aksiyografik ve sefalometrik
yöntemlerle incelenmesi. Atatürk Univ Dis Hekim
Fak Derg 2011; 3:10-14
CR  - 7. Holdaway RA. A soft–tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983; 84:1–28.
CR  - 8. Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the
aesthetic face: Thieme medical pub 1984; 4:45-57.
CR  - 9. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to
orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103(4):299-
312.
CR  - 10. Bergman RT. Cephalometric Soft Tissue Analysis.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116:373-
389.
CR  - 11. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis
and its use in orthodontic treatment planning.
Part I. American journal of orthodontics 1983;84
(1):1-28.
CR  - 12. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric
analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg
1980; 38:744-751.
CR  - 13. Stamenković Z, Raičković V, Ristić V. Changes in
soft tissue profile using functional appliances in
thetreatment of skeletal class II malocclusion. Srp
Arh Celok Lek 2015; 1-2:12-15.
CR  - 14. Rathod AB, Araujo E, Vaden JL, Behrents RG,
Oliver DR. Extraction vs notreatment: Long-term
facial profile changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2015; 5:596-603.
CR  - 15. Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A. Evaluation of speed,
repeatability, and reproducibility of digital
radiography with manual versus computerassisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod
2009; 5:523-528.
CR  - 16. Fernández-Riveiro P, Suárez-Quintanilla D, SmythChamosa E, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Linear
photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial
profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122
(1):59-66.
UR  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eujhs/issue//553040
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/693841
ER  -