Soft Tissue Facial Profile Changes Associated with Incisors Retraction

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

  •   Ayman Salman Al-Shakhs

  •   Hayder Abdallah Hashim

Abstract

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

Rains MD, Nanda R. Soft tissue changes associated with maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 81:481-8.

Riedel R. Esthetics and its relation to orthodontic therapy, Angle Orthod. 1950; 20: 168-

O’Reilly WC. Proportional Changes of Hard and Soft Tissue Profiles as a Result of Orthodontic Treatment, M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, 1957

Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod. 1958; 44: 1-25.

Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53: 262-332.

Ricketts RM. Foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46: 330.

Subtelny JD. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes, Angle Orthod. 1961; 31: 105-122.

Bloom LA. Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1961; 47:371.

Rudee DA. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod. 1964; 50: 421-434.

Hershey HG. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients, AM. J. ORTHOD. 1972; 61: 45-54.

Wisth PJ. Soft tissue response to upper incisor retraction in boys. Br J Orthod 1974; 1:199-204.

Huggins DG, McBride LJ. The influence of the upper incisor position on soft tissue facial profile. Br. J. Orthod. 1975; 2: 141-146.

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.

Oliver BM. The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 82:141-8.

Perkins RA, Staley RN. Change in lip vermillion height during orthodontic treatment. [Thesis] Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1987.

Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod. 1989; 95:220-30.

Talaas MF, Talaas L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod. 1987; 91:385-94.

Roos N. Soft tissue profile changes in class II treatment. Am J Orthod 1977; 72:165-75.

Caplan MJ, Shivapuja PK. The effect of premolar extractions on the soft tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod 1997; 129-36.

Conley RS, Jernigan C. Soft Tissue Changes after Upper Premolar Extraction in Class II Camouflage Therapy. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:59–65.

Lo FD, Hunter WS. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82:384-391.

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.

Wylie WL. The mandibular incisor-its role in facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1955; 25:32-41.

Tan TJ. Profile changes following orthodontic correction of bimaxillary protrusion with preadjusted edgewise appliance. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996; 11: 239-51.

Armijo BS, Brown M and Guyuron B (2012) Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 129: 759–764.

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.

Danielle Hodgkinson, Fiona A Firth and Mauro Farella. Effect of incisor retraction on facial aesthetics. Journal of Orthodontics; 2019; 1 –5.

Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1:45-66.

Meredith HW, Chadha JM. A roentgenographic study of change in head height during childhood and adolescence. Hum. Biol 1962; 34:299-319.

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.

Battagel JM. A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. Eur J Orthod 1993b; 53:305-314.

Isaacson KG, Thom AR. Orthodontics radiographs guidelines. Brt Orthod Soc, 2001.

Björk A. Sutural growth of the upper face studied by the implant method. Acta Odonto. Scand 1966; 24: 109-127.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kasai K, Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998, 113: 674–684.

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.

Lew K. Profile changes following orthodontic treatment of bimaxillary protrusion in adults with Beg appliance. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11:375-81.

Waldman BH. Change in lip contour with maxillary incisor retraction. Angle Orthod. 1982; 52:129-34.

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.

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.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Al-Shakhs, A. S., & Hashim, H. A. (2021). Soft Tissue Facial Profile Changes Associated with Incisors Retraction. European Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2(3), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.24018/clinicmed.2021.2.3.24