YÜZ BÖLÜMLERİNİN ÖZELLİKLERİ İLE ORTODONTİK MALOKLUZYONLAR ARASINDA HERHANGİ BİR İLİŞKİ VAR MI? BÖLÜM I: FRONTAL GÖRÜNÜM
Öz
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, bireylerin frontal yüz özelliklerini değerlendirmek ve ortodontik problemlerle ilişkilerini analiz etmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 250 hastanın frontal yönden fotoğrafları çekildi ve sefalometrik verileri toplandı. Fotoğraflar; yüz boyutlarını, genel simetriyi, alnı, trichion anatomik noktasını, burun deliği görünürlüğünü, burun kökü kırılma noktasını, glabella pozisyonunu, kantus pozisyonlarını, göz küresi simetrisini, sklera görünürlüğünü, burun simetrisini ve şeklini, burun genişliğini, ağız genişliğini, dudak vermillion alanlarını ve çeneyi değerlendirmek için kullanıldı. Fotoğrafik veriler ile maloklüzyon grupları arasındaki korelasyon istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Alın şekli, burun deliği görünürlüğü, ağız genişliği ve çene simetrisindeki farklar, iskeletsel maloklüzyonunun tipine bağlı olarak istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır. Bunun aksine, alın şekli, burun simetrisi, üst dudak vermillionu ve çene simetrisi ile dental malokluzyonlar arasında anlamlı bir ilişki vardır. Çene asimetrisi en sık iskeletsel Sınıf III maloklüzyon ile görülürken, burun asimetrisi dişsel Sınıf III maloklüzyon ile görülür. Asimetri çoğunlukla yüzün alt üçte birinde görülür. Dişsel Sınıf III maloklüzyonlu hastalarda alın, çoğunlukla "geniş" idi. Frontal görünümde, iskeletsel Sınıf I ve II bireylerde artmış burun deliği görünürlüğünü, Sınıf III bireylerde azalmış burun deliği görünürlüğünü vardır.
Sonuç: Fotografik analizler ortodontiye bakış açısı getirmektedir. İskeletsel sınıf III hastalar özellikle yüzün alt üçte birinde asimetrilere yatkındır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Meneghini F. Clinical Facial Analysis. Schröder G, editor. Views of Clinical Facial Photopgraphy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2005. p. 23-32.
- 2. Edler RJ. Background considerations to facial aesthetics. Journal of orthodontics 2001; 28(2): 159-168.
- 3. Sanborn RT. Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of Class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. The Angle Orthodontist 1955; 25(4): 208-222.
- 4. Bashour M. History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2006; 118(3): 741-756.
- 5. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1985; 75(3): 328-337.
- 6. Fitzgerald R, Graivier MH, Kane M, et al. Facial aesthetic analysis. Aesthetic surgery journal 2010; 30(1): 25-27.
- 7. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics, 5th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences , 2014.
- 8. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA, Deutsch C, Munro IR. Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. American journal of orthodontics 1984; 86(1): 52-60.
- 9. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1985; 75(3): 328-337.
- 10. Jones BC, Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. Evolution and human behavior 2001; 22(6): 417-429.
- 11. Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y. Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. The Angle orthodontist 2002; 72(1): 28-35.
- 12. Fong JHJ, Wu HT, Huang MC, Chou YW, Chi LY, Fong Y, et al. Analysis of facial skeletal characteristics in patients with chin deviation. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 2010; 73(1): 29-34.
- 13. Ellis E, McNamara JA. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1984; 42(5): 295-305.
- 14. Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ. Lengthening the aesthetically short nose. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1989; 83(5): 793-800.
- 15. De Assis DSFR, Duarte MAH, Gonçales ES. Clinical evaluation of the alar base width of patients submitted to surgically assisted maxillary expansion. Oral and maxillofacial surgery 2010; 14(3): 149-154.
- 16. Robison JM, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo TG. Relationship of skeletal pattern and nasal form. American journal of orthodontics 1986; 89(6): 499-506.
- 17. Thuer U, Ingervall B. Pressure from the lips on the teeth and malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1986; 90(3): 234-242.
- 18. Sassouni V. A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. American Journal of Orthodontics 1955; 41(10): 735-764.
Is there any correlation between features of face parts and orthodontic malocclusion? Part I: Frontal view
Öz
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate frontal facial features of individuals and analyze their relevance to orthodontic problems.
Methods: Frontal photographs were taken and cephalometric data of 250 patient were collected. Photographs were used to evaluate facial dimensions, general symmetry, forehead, trichion anatomical landmark position, nostril visibility, nasal root breaking point, glabella position, cantus positions, eyeball symmetry, sclera visibility, nose symmetry and shape, nose widths, mouth width, lip vermillion areas and chin. Correlation between photographic data and malocclusion groups was statistically evaluated.
Results: Forehead shape, nostril visibility, mouth width and chin symmetry differences were statistically significant due to type of skeletal malocclusion. Conversely, there are significant correlations between forehead shape, nose symmetry, upper lip vermillion, and chin symmetry and dental malocclusions. Chin asymmetry is mostly seen with skeletal Class III malocclusion, while nasal asymmetry with dental Class III malocclusion. Asymmetry is mostly seen in lower third of the face. In dental Class III malocclusion patients, forehead was mostly "wide". In front view, skeletal Class I and II individuals have increased nostril visibility and Class III decreased nostril visibility.
Conclusions: The photographic analyzes add perspective to orthodontics. Skeletal class III patients are prone to asymmetries especially in lower third of the face.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Meneghini F. Clinical Facial Analysis. Schröder G, editor. Views of Clinical Facial Photopgraphy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2005. p. 23-32.
- 2. Edler RJ. Background considerations to facial aesthetics. Journal of orthodontics 2001; 28(2): 159-168.
- 3. Sanborn RT. Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of Class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. The Angle Orthodontist 1955; 25(4): 208-222.
- 4. Bashour M. History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2006; 118(3): 741-756.
- 5. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1985; 75(3): 328-337.
- 6. Fitzgerald R, Graivier MH, Kane M, et al. Facial aesthetic analysis. Aesthetic surgery journal 2010; 30(1): 25-27.
- 7. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics, 5th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences , 2014.
- 8. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA, Deutsch C, Munro IR. Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. American journal of orthodontics 1984; 86(1): 52-60.
- 9. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1985; 75(3): 328-337.
- 10. Jones BC, Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. Evolution and human behavior 2001; 22(6): 417-429.
- 11. Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y. Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. The Angle orthodontist 2002; 72(1): 28-35.
- 12. Fong JHJ, Wu HT, Huang MC, Chou YW, Chi LY, Fong Y, et al. Analysis of facial skeletal characteristics in patients with chin deviation. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 2010; 73(1): 29-34.
- 13. Ellis E, McNamara JA. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1984; 42(5): 295-305.
- 14. Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ. Lengthening the aesthetically short nose. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1989; 83(5): 793-800.
- 15. De Assis DSFR, Duarte MAH, Gonçales ES. Clinical evaluation of the alar base width of patients submitted to surgically assisted maxillary expansion. Oral and maxillofacial surgery 2010; 14(3): 149-154.
- 16. Robison JM, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo TG. Relationship of skeletal pattern and nasal form. American journal of orthodontics 1986; 89(6): 499-506.
- 17. Thuer U, Ingervall B. Pressure from the lips on the teeth and malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1986; 90(3): 234-242.
- 18. Sassouni V. A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. American Journal of Orthodontics 1955; 41(10): 735-764.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Diş Hekimliği |
| Bölüm | Araştırma |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 27 Nisan 2022 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 2 Kasım 2020 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2022 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1 |
Selcuk Dental Journal Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.