Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile

Ghorbanyjavadpour, Fataneh; Rakhshan, Vahid

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.020

Cited by 45 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It must be taken into account that these changes are likely to affect the attractiveness of the soft tissue profile. In this context, Ghorbanyjavadpour and Rakhshan investigated esthetic factors of the profile silhouettes from 70 Class I subjects by different cephalometric variables and found that improved profile esthetics will be caused by more convex skeletal and soft-tissue profiles, less prominent noses with higher tips, subnasales anterior to the upper lip, more protruded upper lips, less prominent lower lips, smaller interlabial gaps, and more protruding chins [ 31 ].. Previously, Khosravanifard et al reported that especially an excessive mandibular retrusion made both men and women unattractive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different surgical techniques and displacement distances on the soft tissue profile via orthodontic-orthognathic treatment of class II and class III malocclusions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Orthognathic surgery can be carried out using isolated mandibular or maxillary movement and bimaxillary procedures. In cases of moderate skeletal malocclusion, camouflage treatment by premolar extraction is another treatment option. All these surgical procedures can have a different impact on the soft tissue profile. Methods The changes in the soft tissue profile of 187 patients (Class II: 53, Class III: 134) were investigated. The treatment approaches were differentiated as follows: Class II: mandible advancement (MnA), bimaxillary surgery (MxS/MnA), upper extraction (UpEX), or Class III: maxillary advancement (MxA), mandible setback (MnS), bimaxillary surgery (MxA/MnS), and lower extraction (LowEX) as well as the extent of skeletal deviation (moderate Wits appraisal: − 7 mm to 7 mm, pronounced: Wits <− 7 mm, > 7 mm, respectively). This resulted in five groups for Class II treatment and seven groups for Class III treatment. Results In the Class II patients, a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between UpEX and moderate MnA was found for facial profile (N′-Prn-Pog’), soft tissue profile (N′-Sn-Pog’), and mentolabial angle (Pog’-B′-Li). In the Class III patients, a statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) occurred between LowEX and moderate MxA for facial profile (N′-Prn-Pog’), soft tissue profile (N′-Sn-Pog’), upper and lower lip distacne to esthetic line (Ls/Li-E-line), and lower lip length (Sto-Gn’). Only isolated significant differences (p < 0.05) were recognized between the moderate surgical Class II and III treatments as well between the pronounced Class III surgeries. No statistical differences were noticed between moderate and pronounced orthognathic surgery. Conclusions When surgery is required, the influence of orthognathic surgical techniques on the profile seems to be less significant. However, it must be carefully considered if orthognathic or camouflage treatment should be done in moderate malocclusions as a moderate mandibular advancement in Class II therapy will straighten the soft tissue profile much more by increasing the facial and soft tissue profile angle and reducing the mentolabial angle than camouflage treatment. In contrast, moderate maxillary advancement in Class III therapy led to a significantly more convex facial and soft tissue profile by decreasing distances of the lips to the E-Line as well as the lower lip length.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different surgical techniques and displacement distances on the soft tissue profile via orthodontic-orthognathic treatment of class II and class III malocclusions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most scholars think that orthodontists should pay more attention to soft tissue profile than to hard tissue merely, considering that patients and parents are often eager to improve their profile aesthetic. Scholars claimed that the difference of soft tissue profile is mainly concentrated in lower 1/3 of the face, and the harmony of the relationship between nose, lip and chin can improve profile aesthetics (Ghorbanyjavadpour & Rakhshan, 2019). After treatment of FR-3 appliance in our study, the S-N'-Sn, N'-Sn-Pog', ULSn-SN, LLSi-SN increased, S-N'-Si decreased with significant difference, indicating that the base of upper lip forward and upper lip and chin moved back obviously, patient's profile became protrudent after treatment, and the type concave profile has improved, which considering the following reasons: 1. the mesial movement of point A results in the corresponding soft tissue point Sn moves mesially; 2. with the clockwise rotation of mandible, the soft tissue point Pog' moves forward and backward, which eventually increases the N'-Sn-Pog' angle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological Changes of Frankel Functional Regulator III in Mixed Dentition with Class III Malocclusion

Sun

Lingbo

et al. 2020

Int. J. Morphol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hard and soft tissue profile changes following treatment of functional and mild skeletal class III malocclusion in mixed dentition by means of the Frankel functional regulator (FR-3) appliance, and to reveal the mechanism and effectiveness of treatment with FR-3 appliance. Twenty-six patients (chronological mean age, 8.7±1.4 years; mean treatment duration, 10.3±1.3 months) with functional and mild skeletal class III malocclusion were selected and treated with FR-3 appliances. Lateral cephalogram was taken pre-and post-treatment, and the data was analyzed by paired-samples t test with SPSS22.0 software package. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. The results demonstrated that the FR-3 appliance produced a statistically significant decrease in L1-NB, L1-MP, U1-L1 (P<0.

show abstract

“…Then, the following exclusion criteria were employed for this review: (1) case reports; (2) reviews; (3) abstract and author debates or editorials; (4) lack of effective statistical analysis; (5) studies concerning congenital deformities; (6) studies evaluating theoretical algorithms, classification systems, or descriptions of protocols. No limitation referring to the year of publication of the studies was imposed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nose is the most prominent element of the face, influencing facial appearance and profile [1][2][3][4][5]. According to the study by Ghorbanyjavadpour and Rakhshan [6], there are some factors associated with the esthetics of the soft-tissue profile, also associated with the nose, such as less prominent noses with higher tips and subnasales anterior to the upper lip. Numerous authors deal with analysis of the facial profile [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of Analysis of the Nasal Profile: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Jankowska

Janiszewska‐Olszowska

Jedliński

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nose is the most prominent structure of the face, influencing facial appearance and profile. Orthodontists have an awareness of facial structures, including nasal morphology, when diagnosing and treatment planning. Maxillofacial surgeons influence facial profile by bimaxillary surgery, improving facial aesthetics and harmony. The aim of this review was to summarize the available methods of analysing nasal morphology and profile, and to assess their complexity. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase using the following search terms: “nasal profile analysis”, “nasolabial angle”, and “nasal profile cephalometric” in order to select studies providing knowledge on correlations between occlusion and nasal development, differences between skeletal classes, ethnic variability, and differences between the sexes. Studies concerning genetic disorders were excluded. Finally, 17 full-text papers were analysed, which pertained to nasolabial angle, or facial profile including the nose. Data concerning methods, ethnic group, reference landmarks used, and measurements made were extracted and placed in tables. Numerous methods of nasal profile analysis can be found in the literature. These methods describe various numbers of parameters, which have influence on facial aesthetic. Nasal parameters are correlated to skeletal class and nasolabial angle, positions of upper incisors, and maxillary inclination.

show abstract

Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile

Cited by 45 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of different surgical techniques and displacement distances on the soft tissue profile via orthodontic-orthognathic treatment of class II and class III malocclusions

Effects of different surgical techniques and displacement distances on the soft tissue profile via orthodontic-orthognathic treatment of class II and class III malocclusions

Morphological Changes of Frankel Functional Regulator III in Mixed Dentition with Class III Malocclusion

Methods of Analysis of the Nasal Profile: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About