Soft Tissue Facial Profile Changes Associated with Incisors Retraction



Abstract Views
555

Downloads
1101

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 16, 2021
Published Jun 30, 2021
10.24018/clinicmed.2021.2.3.24

Abstract viewed = 555 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Background: The general tendency of facial soft tissue response toward incisors retraction could be expected in various malocclusions. However, different initial malocclusion no doubt leads to differences in this response.

Material and method: This retrospective study consisted of thirty-seven pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalographs belongs to adolescent female with mean age of 15.03 years. The twenty-four landmarks (skeletal, dental, soft tissue) were located and horizontal and vertical reference planes were used. Sixteen linear and six angular measurements were evaluated statistically. The pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were superimposed on best fit cribriform plate of the ethmoid to analyze soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment.

Results: The three methods of error indicated that measurements were valid and reliable. The Labrale superius retraction exhibited the best predictability among upper lip components (Sn, Ss), whereas the lower lip showed better predictability and correlation than the upper lip. The upper and the lower lips revealed relatively similar mean retraction value (2.92 mm) and (2.6 mm) although the upper incisors retracted more (5.25 mm) than the lower incisors (2.86 mm).

Conclusion: The upper incisors to Labrale superius ratio (1.99:1, UIP:Ls) exhibited the highest correlation (r=0.55**) among the other established ratios. The lower incisors to Labrale inferius ratio was (1.13:1, LIP: Is) with significant correlation (r=0.44**), whereas no significant correlation was observed with Labrale superius (r=0.27).

Keywords: Soft tissue profile, upper and lower lip, incisors retaction

References

  1. Rains MD, Nanda R. Soft tissue changes associated with maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 81:481-8.
     Google Scholar
  2. Riedel R. Esthetics and its relation to orthodontic therapy, Angle Orthod. 1950; 20: 168-
     Google Scholar
  3. O’Reilly WC. Proportional Changes of Hard and Soft Tissue Profiles as a Result of Orthodontic Treatment, M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, 1957
     Google Scholar
  4. Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod. 1958; 44: 1-25.
     Google Scholar
  5. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53: 262-332.
     Google Scholar
  6. Ricketts RM. Foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46: 330.
     Google Scholar
  7. Subtelny JD. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes, Angle Orthod. 1961; 31: 105-122.
     Google Scholar
  8. Bloom LA. Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1961; 47:371.
     Google Scholar
  9. Rudee DA. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod. 1964; 50: 421-434.
     Google Scholar
  10. Hershey HG. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients, AM. J. ORTHOD. 1972; 61: 45-54.
     Google Scholar
  11. Wisth PJ. Soft tissue response to upper incisor retraction in boys. Br J Orthod 1974; 1:199-204.
     Google Scholar
  12. Huggins DG, McBride LJ. The influence of the upper incisor position on soft tissue facial profile. Br. J. Orthod. 1975; 2: 141-146.
     Google Scholar
  13. Zierhut EC, Joondeph DR, Artun J, Little RM. Long-term changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division1 Malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2000 Jun; 70(3):208-19.
     Google Scholar
  14. Oliver BM. The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 82:141-8.
     Google Scholar
  15. Perkins RA, Staley RN. Change in lip vermillion height during orthodontic treatment. [Thesis] Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1987.
     Google Scholar
  16. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod. 1989; 95:220-30.
     Google Scholar
  17. Talaas MF, Talaas L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod. 1987; 91:385-94.
     Google Scholar
  18. Roos N. Soft tissue profile changes in class II treatment. Am J Orthod 1977; 72:165-75.
     Google Scholar
  19. Caplan MJ, Shivapuja PK. The effect of premolar extractions on the soft tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod 1997; 129-36.
     Google Scholar
  20. Conley RS, Jernigan C. Soft Tissue Changes after Upper Premolar Extraction in Class II Camouflage Therapy. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:59–65.
     Google Scholar
  21. Lo FD, Hunter WS. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82:384-391.
     Google Scholar
  22. Ramos AL, Sakima MT, Pinto ADS, Bowman SJ. Upper Lip Changes Correlated to Maxillary Incisor Retraction- A Metallic Implant Study. Angle Orthod 2005; 75:499-505.
     Google Scholar
  23. Wylie WL. The mandibular incisor-its role in facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1955; 25:32-41.
     Google Scholar
  24. Tan TJ. Profile changes following orthodontic correction of bimaxillary protrusion with preadjusted edgewise appliance. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996; 11: 239-51.
     Google Scholar
  25. Armijo BS, Brown M and Guyuron B (2012) Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 129: 759–764.
     Google Scholar
  26. Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AM, et al. (2014) The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 134: 201–210.
     Google Scholar
  27. Danielle Hodgkinson, Fiona A Firth and Mauro Farella. Effect of incisor retraction on facial aesthetics. Journal of Orthodontics; 2019; 1 –5.
     Google Scholar
  28. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1:45-66.
     Google Scholar
  29. Meredith HW, Chadha JM. A roentgenographic study of change in head height during childhood and adolescence. Hum. Biol 1962; 34:299-319.
     Google Scholar
  30. Riolo ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS. An atlas of craniofacial growth: cephalometric standards from the university school growth study. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1974.
     Google Scholar
  31. Battagel JM. A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. Eur J Orthod 1993b; 53:305-314.
     Google Scholar
  32. Isaacson KG, Thom AR. Orthodontics radiographs guidelines. Brt Orthod Soc, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  33. Björk A. Sutural growth of the upper face studied by the implant method. Acta Odonto. Scand 1966; 24: 109-127.
     Google Scholar
  34. Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5:1-46.
     Google Scholar
  35. Konstantonis D, Vasileiou D, Papageorgiou SN, et al. (2018) Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Oral Sciences 126: 167–179.
     Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn M, Markic G, Doulis I, et al. Effect of different incisor movements on the soft tissue profile measured in reference to a rough-surfaced palatal implant. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2016; 149: 349–357.
     Google Scholar
  37. Hodges A, Rossouw PE, Campbell PM, et al. Prediction of lip response to four first premolar extractions in white female adolescentsand adults. Angle Orthodontist 2009; 79: 413–421.
     Google Scholar
  38. Kasai K, Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998, 113: 674–684.
     Google Scholar
  39. Solem RC, Marasco R, Guiterrez-Pulido L, et al. Three dimensional soft-tissue and hard-tissue changes in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2013; 144: 218–228.
     Google Scholar
  40. Lew K. Profile changes following orthodontic treatment of bimaxillary protrusion in adults with Beg appliance. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11:375-81.
     Google Scholar
  41. Waldman BH. Change in lip contour with maxillary incisor retraction. Angle Orthod. 1982; 52:129-34.
     Google Scholar
  42. Kusnoto J, Kusnoto H. The effect of anterior tooth retraction on lip position of orthodontically treated adult Indonesians. Am J Orthod 2001; 120:304-7.
     Google Scholar
  43. Hasstedt, CW. A serial cephalometric study of the effects of orthodontic treatment on incisor overbite and soft tissue profile, master’s thesis, University of Washington, 1956.
     Google Scholar