DISTINGUISHING HARD AND SOFT TISSUE FACIAL MORPHOLOGY AMONG CLASS I AND CLASS III CHILDREN: A CEPHALOMETRIC ASSESSMENT

Year 2018, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 194 - 198, 22.04.2018

Nihat Kılıç Hüsamettin Oktay Gülhan Çatal Mevlüt Çelikoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.418976

Cited By: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT

 

Aim: To assess the sagittal soft and hard soft
tissue morphology of growing Class III patients in comparison with a Class I control subjects.

Materials and Methods: Forty-one female children with Class III malocclusion and 30 Class I female children were
included in the study. Eight linear and 6 angular measurements were made on
lateral cephalograms to evaluate soft tissue and skeletal characteristics.

Results: The subjects with Class III malocclusion showed a retrusive maxilla
(A-y distance, 48.52±2.53) and upper lip (Ss-y distance, 64.14±3.26), a
protrusive mandible (B-y distance, 56.15±5.49) a prominent chin (Pog’-y
distance, 70.65±6.87), retroclined lower incisors (IMPA, 87.14±5.68), and increased vertical dimensions (SN-GoMe, 36.49±5.29) compared to control subjects.

Conclusions: Our findings indicated that soft and hard tissue characteristics of
Class III subjects are distinct from Class I subjects in the middle region and
lower third of the face. Orthopedic traction of mid-face arguably started
earlier as a first treatment protocol to obtain balanced facial profile in
Class III subjects.

Keywords: Soft tissue profile, cephalometry, Class III malocclusion, Class I
occlusion

SINIF I VE SINIF III İLİŞKİLİ ÇOCUKLARDAKİ SERT VE
YUMUŞAK DOKU YÜZ MORFOLOJİSİ FARKLILIKLARI: SEFALOMETRİK İNCELEME

ÖZ

 

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı
Sınıf III ilişkiye sahip ço- cukların sert ve yumuşak doku yüz morfolojisini Sınıf I  ilişkiye sahip kontrol bireyleri
ile karşılaştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma Sınıf III
maloklüzyonlu 41 ve Sınıf I oklüzyonlu 30 bayan çocuğu içermektedir. Bu
bireylerin sert ve yumuşak doku karakteristiklerinin incelenmesi için
sefalometrik filmler üzerinde 8 linear ve 6 açısal ölçüm yapılmıştır.

Bulgular: Kontrol grubundaki bireylerle karşılaştırıldı- ğında, Sınıf III
maloklüzyonlu bireylerin retrüziv üst çe- ne ve üst dudak, protruziv bir alt çene
ve belirgin çene ucu, retrokline alt kesici dişler ile artmış dik yön boyut- lara sahip oldukları
görülmüştür.

Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın
bulguları, Sınıf III bireylerin or- ta ve alt yüz bölgesindeki sert ve yumuşak
doku yüz karakterlerinin Sınıf I bireylerden farklı olduğunu gös- termektedir. Sınıf III
bireylerde dengeli bir yüz profile elde etmek için, maksiller protraksiyon ilk
tedavi proto- kolü olarak daha erken başlatılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yumuşak doku
profili, sefalometri, Sınıf III maloklüzyon, Sınıf I oklüzyon

Keywords

Soft tissue profile, cephalometry, Class III malocclusion

References

• 1. Guyer EC, Ellis EE, McNamara JA, Behrents RG. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod 1986;56:7-30.
• 2. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983;84:1-28.
• 3. Alves PV, Zhao L, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Three-dimensional facial surface analysis of patients with skeletal malocclusion. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20:290-6.
• 4. Krneta B, Zhurov A, Richmond S, Ovsenik M. Diagnosis of Class III malocclusion in 7- to 8-year-old children--a 3D evaluation. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:379-85.
• 5. Božič M, Kau CH, Richmond S, Ovsenik M, Hren NI. Novel method of 3-dimensional soft-tissue analysis for Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:758-69.
• 6. Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Tuncer C, Gungor K, Ozkan C, Arslan E, Altinova AE, Akturk M, Toruner FB. Cephalometric assessment of soft tissue morphology of patients with acromegaly. Aust Orthod J. 2016;32:48-54.
• 7. Mishima K, Shiraishi M, Kawai Y, Umeda H, Nakano H, Ueyama Y. Characteristics of Posed Smiles for Class III Female Patients Before and After Osteotomy Using Principal Component Analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2016 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]
• 8. Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod 2011;81:13-8.
• 9. Incrapera AK, Kau CH, English JD, McGrory K, Sarver DM. Soft tissue images from cephalograms compared with those from a 3D surface acquisition system. Angle Orthod 2010;80:58-64.
• 10. Lin SS, Lai JP, Yen YY, Chen IC, Kuo AH, Yeh IC. Investigation into the prediction accuracy of photocephalometry for skeletal Class III adult female patients treated with two-jaw surgery. J Dent Sci 2012;7:137-47.
• 11. Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 1990;60:177-90. 12. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.
• 13. Spalj S, Mestrovic S, Lapter Varga M, Slaj M. Skeletal components of class III malocclusions and compensation mechanisms. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:629-37.
• 14. Singh GD, McNamara JA, Lozanoff S. Finite-element morphometry of soft tissue morphology in subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1999:69:215-24.
• 15. Chang HP, Lin HC, Liu PH, Chang CH. Midfacial and mandibular morphometry of children with Class II and Class III malocclusions. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:642-7.
• 16. Rabie AB, Gu Y. Diagnostic criteria for pseudo-Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:1-9.
• 17. Baccetti T, Reyes BC, McNamara JA. Craniofacial changes in Class III malocclusion as related to skeletal and dental maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:171.e1- e12.
• 18. Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:674-84.
• 19. Krneta B, Primožič J, Zhurov A, Richmond S, Ovsenik M.Three-dimensional evaluation of facial morphology in children aged 5-6 years with a Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:133-9.
• 20. De Clerck HJ, Proffit WR. Growth modification of the face: A current perspective with emphasis on Class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:37-46.
• 21. Kilic N, Catal G, Kiki A, Oktay H. Soft tissue profile changes following maxillary protraction in Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:419-24