Dentofacial characteristics of patients with Angle Class I and Class II malocclusions

Santos, Rogério Lacerda dos; Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira

doi:10.1590/s2176-94512012000200010

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…H.SN angle in class I group was 67.58°; in class II groups was 59.65° and 57.58° in class III group. 18 R sukhia et al in their study gave the value of nasolabial angle of 98.6° in class I and 94.8° in class II. 19 Slightly less than nasolabial angle in our study i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison of Soft Tissue Cephalometric Parameters Distinguishing Skeletal Class I, II and III Malocclusion

Habib¹,

Ahsan²,

Majeed³

et al. 2020

J Pak Dent Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study assess some cephalometric measurements of the soft tissue profile in order to observe the behavior of facial convexity in patients with Class I, Class II division 1, and Class III malocclusions. METHODOLOGY: 102 Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of patients attending orthodontic OPD. Ages 16-45 years (mean age of 17.6 years) were selected for this study. They were divided into 3 groups, Class I, class II and class III, using ANB value of (Steiners analysis). Soft tissue cephalometric values of angle of convexity, H.SN angle, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle and linear measurements of upper and lower lip to S line was measured by a single observer. Inter group and inter gender comparison of all the variable were done. RESULTS: The result showed significant differences amongst the three groups in mentolabial angle , H.SN angle, upper lip to S line and lower lip to S lines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison of Soft Tissue Cephalometric Parameters Distinguishing Skeletal Class I, II and III Malocclusion

Habib¹,

Ahsan²,

Majeed³

et al. 2020

J Pak Dent Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aesthetic impression of a harmonious profile is the result of many factors: racial affiliation, upbringing, historical period, cultural pattern, the influence of media, demographic factors, age, sex, etc., but it is primarily the result of a subjective view and personal opinion [ 2 , 11 , 27 – 30 ]. Because of that, it cannot be analyzed only on the basis of the mean values or numbers, but these values are introduced for the objectivity in the aesthetic evaluation [ 3 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the issue of aesthetic impression was considered as related to sex. Authors who examined aesthetic value of the prominent chin bulge in men, characterized this phenomenon as an advantage (“it contributes to the impression of manliness”), whereas in females the prominent chin was considered an aesthetic disadvantage [ 2 , 3 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 38 ]. The same authors related the prominent nose and tip of a chin to lessened aesthetic impression, since, with their emphasis, the concavity of the lower third of a face increases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are contradictory views on the influence of characteristic dento-skeletal pattern on the harmony of a face profile. According to some authors [ 3 , 7 , 14 ], it does not have a significant influence on the face profile. On the other hand, some researchers indicate dissatisfaction of potential patients with class II division 2, primarily with face appearance and smile (so called gummy smile) [ 16 , 19 – 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Class II Division 2 Malocclusions on the Harmony of the Human Face Profile

Perović

2017

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPersons with class II division 2 malocclusion are characterized by a very specific dento-skeletal and soft-tissue profile (a profile in which a protruding nose and chin, retruding lips, concave and shortened lower third of the face, and gummy smile are dominant), which is the opposite of the currently modern profiles (convex profile of protruding lips and small chin). The aim of this research was to determine the differences in parameters of harmonies of facial profiles between persons with class II division 2 malocclusions and class I, and to establish the significance of those differences.Material/MethodsFor this study, 50 patients with class II division 2 malocclusions and 50 patients with class I were selected; profile photos were recorded and a photometric analysis was done: a type of profile according to Schwarz, the shape of a nose, the prominence of chin, biometrical field, the position of lips in relation to the tangent Sn-Pg, S-line (Steiner), E-line (Riketts) and a facial angle according to Arnett.ResultsThe significant differences in profiles of persons with class II division 2 compared to class I were: position and prominence of the chin, the position of the lower and upper lip in relation to the S-line, and smaller value of a facial angle in relation to persons with class I.ConclusionsThe differences seen in skeletal profiles were not associated with significant differences in the profiled facial contours of the examined groups. The compensatory role of the fullness of soft tissues of the lips is probably the reason why there were not significant deviations in all the examined parameters.

show abstract

“…Included among the morphological requisites that interfere in the presentation of the smile are the relations between the bones and soft tissues RUELLAS, 2012;PITHON et al, 2014a-b), harmony between the teeth, presence of a buccal corridor, amount of gingival exposure and the presence of diastemas at the midline (KEPIC et al, 1990;RODEN-JOHNSON et al, 2005;JORNUNG;FARDAL, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Black spaces between maxillary incisors: what is the aesthetic limit?

Pithon¹,

Santos²,

Barreto³

et al. 2015

Biosci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The focus of this article was evaluates the degree of perception of laypersons of different age groups with respect to smile esthetics in cases involving black spaces between maxillary incisors. Changes were made in a photograph of a smiling female patient, simulating various configurations of black spaces between maxillary incisors. For this purpose an image manipulation Photoshop CS3 was used. For evaluation black spaces of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mm in size were created. After digital manipulation, the photographs were printed on photographic paper, attached to a questionnaire, and distributed among laypersons in the age groups of 15-19; 35-44, and 65-74. To evaluate the degree of esthetics, a scale of attractiveness was used, in which a score of 0 would represent ''not very attractive'', 5 ''attractive'' and 10 ''very attractive''. Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test was used (P<0.05). Results showed that the photographs without black space and with black space of 2.5 mm were scored as the most and least attractive, respectively, by all the age groups. The degree of perception of black spaces between maxillary incisors gradually diminished as the age of the groups increased (P<0.05). Black spaces have a negative repercussion on smile esthetics, perceived more easily by younger persons. The larger the black space, less attractive the smile.

show abstract

Dentofacial characteristics of patients with Angle Class I and Class II malocclusions

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Comparison of Soft Tissue Cephalometric Parameters Distinguishing Skeletal Class I, II and III Malocclusion

Comparison of Soft Tissue Cephalometric Parameters Distinguishing Skeletal Class I, II and III Malocclusion

The Influence of Class II Division 2 Malocclusions on the Harmony of the Human Face Profile

Black spaces between maxillary incisors: what is the aesthetic limit?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About