articol

107 1388 2 5

16-21

* 2 1

*

) ( [email protected]

: 1

: 2

2/2/88

13/3/88

. 26/3/88

113 107: )2(5: 1388

:

. 16- 21

59 :

1/17 29 30

10 4.

Subtenly Holdaway Ricketts

.

05/0 t

SPSS12 .

-H no " " " :

line" "E-line"

"H-line " " "

)05/0 < p value .( Holdaway 6 5

.

. Subtenly Ricketts

:

Holdaway .

.

. :

www.mui.ac.ir
http://www.mui.ac.ir

1388 2 5 108

. -

].1[

]Ricketts]2

Holdaway]3[ Burstone]4[ .

.

]7-9[ ]6[ ]5[

]16[ ]14 15[ ]9-13[

.

.

]17[

11-14

.

]18[

. Steiner Tweed

.

62 ]19[ Al Taki

Holdaway .

H Holdaway

.

.

) cross sectional(

59

1/17 29 30

. 21-16

) Multi-stage random sampling(

) 2160 2285( 4445

73

].20[

:

CL I -1

crowding spacing -2

crowding

-3

-4

-5

-6

www.mui.ac.ir

109 1388 2 5

.

.Ceph. plan Meca, D.R(

1994. Type P.M. 2002, Helsinki, Finland(

KV 80 MA 12 .

trace .

Subnasal Orbital Porion

.

8 6

10 4

]Subtenly]21 ]Holdaway]3[ Ricketts]2

). 3 2 1 (

.1

1- SN

-2

3- Facial Plane

4- Facial Plane

5- H-Line

6- E-Line

7- Ls-FHP

.2

- Soft-tissue facial angle - H-angle - Facial Convexity 4 - Total Faqcial Convexity angle

.3

- Nose Prominence

- Upper Lip Sulcus

- Subnasal to H-Line

- Upper Lip thickness

- Lower Lip to H-Line

- Inferior Sulcus to H-Line

- Soft-tissue chin thickness

- no to H-Line

- Ls to E-Line

- Li to E-Line

www.mui.ac.ir

1388 2 5 110

05/0 t

. SPSS12 .

Method errors 15

45

Dahlberg ME

) 2E d =Me ( . 2n

.

.

% 95

Holdaway Ricketts

Subtenly 1 .

. 4

.1

P value

024/0* 1/3 5/91 2/3 4/93 Soft-tissue facial angle 0845/0 1/2 9/17 2 7/17 Nose prominence 0825/0 6/1 4 3/1 1/4 Upper Lip sulcus depth 092/0 3/3 4/6 2/2 2/5 Soft- tissue subnasal to H-line

001/0

111 1388 2 5

Ricketts .3 Ricketts

3 -2 7/4 * 3 Upper Lip to E-Line 2 -1 8/1 7/0 * Lower Lip to E-Line

* p value < 05/0

Subtenly .4

Subtenly

161 161 5/161 2/159 Facial convexity angle

133 137 2/131* 4/130** Total Facial convexity angle

* p value < / ** p value < /

.

.

.

5

Soft-tissue( . )1 (

facial angle( 4/93

5/91

). p value= 024/0(

]22[ Mauchamp ]Subtenly]21

]16[ Basciftci .

.

Al-Taki .

Basciftci ] 19[

] 16[

-Al .

Taki ]19[

.

.

) p value > 001/0(

E-Line

).p value = 008/0(

. ]19[ Al-Taki

-

]14[

]16[

.

H )Inferior

sulcus to H-line ( ) 6(

)p value= 012/0( ) 9/4(

]19[ Al-Taki

] 16[ Basciftci

.

www.mui.ac.ir

1388 2 5 112

Holdaway

5 6

Holdaway

2 ]16[ ).2 (

Holdaway

.

)H )H angle

2/17 9/4 3/15 5/3

10

. Holdaway 7-14

H ]19[ Al-Taki

. Holdaway

]18[

. Steiner Tweed

H

. ]18[ 7/17 88/2

) 4/13(

Holdaway Al-Taki

Basciftci ] 19[

. ]16[

.

Holdaway

Holdaway

.

E-Line

Ricketts

(

]14[ Hwang ). 3

E-line

. -

]Subtenly]21

Subtenly

Holdaway ) 4 (

.

]17[

E-line H-line

.

:

3-6 ) 1

.

) 2

) 3

) 4

:

. -

-

.

Holdaway -

.

Ricketts -

.

Subtenly -

.

.

www.mui.ac.ir

113 1388 2 5

References 1. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: Current Principles & Techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby;

2005. p. 3. 2. Ricketts RM. Planning Treatment on the Basis of the Facial Pattern and an Estimate of Its Growth. Angle Orthod

1957; 27(1): 14-37. 3. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J

Orthod 1983; 84(1): 1-28. 4. Burstone CJ. Integumental Contour And Extension Patterns. The Angle Orthodontist 1959; 29(2): 93-104. 5. Zylinski CG, Nanda RS, Kapila S. Analysis of soft tissue facial profile in white males. Am J Orthod Dentofacial

Orthop 1992; 101(6): 514-8.. 6. Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Messersmith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-Americans. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106(2): 146-55. 7. Cooke MS, Wei SH. Cephalometric standards for the southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10(3): 264-72. 8. Wu J, Hagg U, Rabie AB. Chinese norms of McNamara's cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(1): 12-20. 9. Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles.

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 50(11): 1184-9. 10. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Comparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian

adults in antero-posterior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29(5): 493-9. 11. Alcalde RE, Jinno T, Orsini MG, Sasaki A, Sugiyama RM, Matsumura T. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in

Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118(1): 84-9. 12. 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(4): 431-8.

13. Uesato G, Kinoshita Z, Kawamoto T, Koyama I, Nakanishi Y. Steiner cephalometric norms for Japanese and Japanese-Americans. Am J Orthod 1978; 73(3): 321-7.

14. 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(1): 72-80.

15. Park IC, Bowman D, Klapper L. A cephalometric study of Korean adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96(1): 54-9.

16. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Anatolian Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123(4): 395-400.

17. Haj Seyed Javadi H, Riaz Davudi P. Cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tissue in students of Tehran guidance schools with normal occlusion. [Thesis]. Tehran: School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 1988.

18. Hajighadimi M, Dougherty HL, Garakani F. Cephalometric evaluation of Iranian children and its comparison with Tweed's and Steiner's standards. Am J Orthod 1981; 79(2): 192-7.

19. Taki AA, Oguz F, Abuhijleh E. Facial soft tissue values in Persian adults with normal occlusion and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2009; 79(3): 491-4.

20. Ramazan Zadeh BA, Shahabi N. Determination of hard tissue cephalometric standards in 16-21 year old Kermanian students with normal occlusion. Journal of Dental School 1999; 17(1): 24-30.

21. Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod 1959; 45(7): 481-507.

22. Mauchamp O, Sassouni V. Growth and prediction of the skeletal and soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod 1973; 64(1): 83-94.

www.mui.ac.ir

Cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tisssue in 16-21 years old students with normal occlusion in Kerman

Barat Ali Ramazanzadeh, Mohammad Hossein Karimi, Sotodeh Tahmasbi *

Abstract Introduction: The aim of the present study was to cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tissue facial profile for 16-21 years old students of Kerman with normal occlusion. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we utilized 59 lateral cephalometric radiographs of 30 girls and 29 boys with mean age of 17.1 years and normal occlusion from Kerman department of orthodontics. Four angular and 10 linear measurements from Holdaway, Ricketts and Subtenly analyses were used to evaluate soft tissue profile. Mean values were utilized to compare girls and boys with each other and with similar studies by t-test using SPSS 12 ( = 0.05). Results: In comparison of girls with boys, soft tissue facial angle, no to H-line and upper lip to Eline were significantly increased in Kermanian girls compared with Kermanian boys; while in boys, upper lip thickness and inferior sulcus to H-line were larger (p

articol

Documents

Transcript of articol