Soft tissue parameters variability in patients with normal dental occlusion
https://doi.org/10.36377/1726-7242-2022-20-2-171-178
Abstract
Facial aesthetics can be characterized by both subjective and objective data. The subjective view depends on many factors: gender, age, education level, population, race, ethnic group, fashion.
Aim. Determine of soft tissue variability parameters in individuals with physiological occlusion.
Materials and methods: a photometric examination of 20 persons with normal occlusion aged 20-24 years was carried out. There were used 12 soft tissue points on face profile and 6 front points for the photometric study. We researched soft tissue’s transversal parameters in full face structures and the angular parameters. Also we researched soft tissue profile’s ratio of points and planes to the true vertical and horizontal, and the face parts ratio reflecting indices.
Results. It was determined that papameters have the maximum variability: under/beard line rotation, cervical-chin angle, cervical angle, cervical index, nose, middle and lower heights face ratio rotation angle. Facial Changes index shows that 35% of the studied subjects were classified as mild, 45% as moderate, and 20% as severe.
Conclusions. The of the standards narrow framework does not allow taking into account the individual, ethnic, gender and age components of the face aesthetic perception. There is needed norms Greater individualization, an index evaluation increase role and face parts ratio analysis.
About the Authors
R. R. Magomedov
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Senior laboratory assistant at the Department of Orthodontics
20с1, Delegatskaya st, Moscow, 27473
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
A. I. Bobro
Private practice «Denta-El»
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Private practice doctor
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
A. B. Slabkovskaya
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Orthodontics
20с1, Delegatskaya st, Moscow, 27473
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
S. K. Akhmedova
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Postgraduate student of the Department of Orthodontics
20с1, Delegatskaya st, Moscow, 27473
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
N. S. Drobysheva
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
PhD, associate professor of the Department of Orthodontics
20с1, Delegatskaya st, Moscow, 27473
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
References
1. Golizadekh AM. Correction of bite esthetics in patients with mandibular prognathia and lateral cephalogram analysis of soft and hard tissues of the facial region of the head. Peadiatric dentistry and prophylaxsis. 2010; (4):56-58. (In Russ.)
2. Marhtanov NB, Bloom SA. Diagnostics and treatment tactics in treating patients wih smile esthetic defects. Peadiatric dentistry and prophylaxsis. 2004; 3(3-4):43-46. (In Russ.)
3. Pereverzev VA. Beauty of the face. How to measure it? – Volgograd, 1979; 176. (In Russ.)
4. Persin LS, Dzaraev ChR, Talalaeva EV. The use of a complex 3D-model of the head for diagnosing anomalies of the dental and jaw system. Dentistry. 2011; 90(2):74-77. (In Russ.)
5. Fleischer GM. Esthetics of the face, evaluation of facial parameters. Textbook for doctors. Publishing solutions publishers. 2019; 130. (In Russ.)
6. Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures: Part 1. Results and trends. J. Clin. Orthod. 1990; 25:145-56.
7. Looi L, Mills J. The effect of two contrasting forms of orthodontic treatment on facial profile. Am. J. Orthod. 1982; 89:507-517. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90009-6.
8. Nanda R. Changes in the soft tissue chin after orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. and Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:41-46. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70030-G.
9. Nanda R, Hanspeter M, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod. 1989; 60:177-176. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1990)060<0177:GCITST>2.0.CO;2.
10. Park YC, Burstone C. Soft-tissue profile: Fallacies of Hard-tissue standards in treatment planning. Am. J. Orthod. 1986; 90:52-62. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(86)90027-2.
11. Ruf S., Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in youngadults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69:239-246. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0239:DEAFPC>2.3.CO;2.
12. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:116-127. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00307-x.
Review
For citations:
Magomedov R.R., Bobro A.I., Slabkovskaya A.B., Akhmedova S.K., Drobysheva N.S. Soft tissue parameters variability in patients with normal dental occlusion. Endodontics Today. 2022;20(2):171-178. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36377/1726-7242-2022-20-2-171-178
Email this article 