SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Ortodonti Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of soft tissue profile between subgroups of skeletal class III malocclusion

iskeletsel sınıf III malokluzyon alt gruplarında yumuşak doku profilinin karşılaştırılması

Ayşe Tuba ALTUĞ
Gökmen KURT
Ayça ÜSTDAL
Pages
30–40
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: Chin measurement (distance between soft tissue pogonion to vertical reference plane) showed the highest value in Group I (5.14 ± 2,93) compared with Groups 2 (2.94 ± 2,15) and 3 (3.05 ± 1,98) (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to compare the soft tissue profiles of patients wiht skeletal Class III malocclusions originated from; maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion and the combination of maxillary retrusion and mandibular protrusion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: Lateral cephalomet- ric radiographs of 66 subjects were divided into three groups according to the Nperp-A and Nperp-Pg variables; Group I-maxil¬lary retrusion (n:23; mean age: 13.44 years), Croup 2-mandibular protrusion (n:22; mean age: 13.31 years), and Croup 3-combination of maxillary retrusion and mandibular protrusion (n:21; mean age: 13.04 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: Chin measurement (distance between soft tissue pogonion to vertical reference plane) showed the highest value in Group I (5.14 ± 2,93) compared with Groups 2 (2.94 ± 2,15) and 3 (3.05 ± 1,98) (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the soft tissue profiles of patients wiht skeletal Class III malocclusions originated from; maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion and the combination of maxillary retrusion and mandibular protrusion. Material and Method: Lateral cephalomet- ric radiographs of 66 subjects were divided into three groups according to the Nperp-A and Nperp-Pg variables; Group I-maxil¬lary retrusion (n:23; mean age: 13.44 years), Croup 2-mandibular protrusion (n:22; mean age: 13.31 years), and Croup 3-combination of maxillary retrusion and mandibular protrusion (n:21; mean age: 13.04 years). Besides the descriptive parameters of Class III subgroups, 13 soft tissue measurements (Gl-Sn, Sn-Me, ULL, St-Me, Sn-LLV, LLV-Me, interlabial distance, upper lip, lower lip, Chin, Gl-Sn/Sn-Me, Sn-St/St-Me and Sn-LLV/LLV-Me) were achieved for evaluating the possible differences between Class III subgroups. The differences between all Class III groups were evaluated by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test. Results: Chin measurement (distance between soft tissue pogonion to vertical reference plane) showed the highest value in Group I (5.14 ± 2,93) compared with Groups 2 (2.94 ± 2,15) and 3 (3.05 ± 1,98) (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, mandibu¬lar protruzyon, maksi İler retruzyon ve mandibular protruzyon-maksiller retruzyon kombinasyonundan kaynaklanan iskeletsel sınıf III malokluzyonlu hastaların yumuşak doku profillerinin karşılaştırıl- masıdır. Materyal ve metot: 66 hastanın lateral sefalogramları, Nperp-A ve Npeıp- Pg ölçümlerine göre; grup 1: maksiller retruzyon, (n:23, ortalama yaş:13.44) grup 2: mandibular protruzyon (n:22, ortalama yaş:13.31) ve grup 3: mandibular protruzyon-maksiller retruzyon kombi¬nasyonu (n:21, ortalama yaş: 13.04) olmak üzere 3 gruba ayrıldı. Sınıf III altgrup- larının açıklayıcı değişkenlerinin yanında sınıf III altgrupları arasındaki muhtemel farklılıkları değerlendirmek için 13 yumuşak doku ölçümü (Gl-Sn, Sn-Me, ULL, St- Me, Sn-LLV, LLVMe, dudaklar arası mesafe, üst dudak, alt dudak, çene, Gl-Sn/Sn- Me, Sn-St/St-Me ve Sn-LLV/LLV-Me) yapıldı. Bütün sınıf III grupları arasındaki fark¬lar ANOVA ve Duncan testi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çene ucu ölçümü grup 2 (2.94±2.15) ve grup 3 (3.05+1.98) (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ALTUĞ, A. T., KURT, G., ÜSTDAL, A. (2022). Comparison of soft tissue profile between subgroups of skeletal class III malocclusion. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 30–40. https://ajindex.com/articles/639447

References (18)

  1. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning: Part I. Am J Orthod 1983
  2. Wylie, GA, Fish LG, Epker BN. Cephalometrics: a comparison of five analysis currently used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg 1987
  3. Burstone CJ. The integumental contour and extension patterns. Angle Orthod 1959
  4. Holdaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatm planning: Part II. Am J Orthod 1984
  5. 279,293. 5.Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967
  6. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980
  7. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning-part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993
  8. Arnett GW, RP McLaughlin. Facial and dental planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. London: Mosby/Elsevier
  9. Sanborn RT. Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of Class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1955
  10. Guyer EC, Ellis EE, McNamara JA Jr, Behrents RG. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents Angle Orthod 1986
  11. Williams S, Andersen CE. The morphology of the potential Class 111 skeletal pattern in the growing child. Am J Orthod 1986
  12. Graber LW. Chin cup therapy for mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977
  13. Campbell PM. The dilemma of Class III treatment. Angle Orthod 1983
  14. Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SHY. Soft Tissue and Dentoskeletal Profile Changes Associated with Maxillary Expansion and Protraction Headgear Treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996
  15. Ritucci R, Nanda R. The effect of chincup therapy on the growth and development of the cranial base and midface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986
  16. Deguchi T, Kuroda T, Minoshima Y, Graber TM. Craniofacial features of patients with Class III abnormalities: growth-related changes and effects of short-term and long-term chincup therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002
  17. Frankel R, FrankeLC. Orthodontics in orofacial region with help of function regulators. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1988
  18. McNamara Jr JA, Brust EW, Riolo ML. Soft tissue evaluation of individuals with an ideal occlusion and a well-balanced face. In: McNamara Jr J