Anteroposterior and vertical soft tissue cephalometric norms of Iranians, interethnic comparisons, sex dimorphism, and the effect of age on cephalometric variables
- 17 Downloads
This study established about 50 anteroposterior and vertical cephalometric norms of five tracing analyses in Iranians, using a large sample.
Lateral cephalographs of 130 subjects (85 females, 45 males, with an average age of 22.77 ± 2.55 years (range 20–29)) were traced manually using the Ricketts, Holdaway, Z-Merrifield, Epker, and Legan-Burstone soft tissue analyses. The role of age and sex on measurements, as well as the comparisons between Iranian norms with Caucasians from European decent, was determined statistically (α = 0.001).
Age had no significant effect (all P values > 0.01). Sexual dimorphism existed in terms of numerous parameters. Compared to analysis standards, upper lip to E-plane, nose prominence, upper lip thickness, nasomental angle, Z angle, interlabial distance, subnasale perp to chin, subnasale-stomion:stomion-menton, subnasale-lower lip:lower lip-menton, interlabial gap, and vertical lip-chin ratio were smaller in Iranians. Superior sulcus depth, skeletal profile convexity, upper lip strain, upper lip curvature, H-angle, soft tissue chin thickness, nasofacial angle, subnasale perp to upper lip, subnasale perp to lower lip, maxillary prognathism, lower face throat angle, upper lip protrusion, lower lip protrusion, mentolabial sulcus, and lower vertical height-depth ratio were greater in Iranians compared to the norm (P ≤ 0.001).
A great degree of sex dimorphism might exist among Iranians. Many textbook norms might not be the best options for diagnosis or treatment of Iranians.
KeywordsAnthropometry Ethnic groups Orthodontic norms Soft tissue profile Sex dimorphism
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included prospectively in the study.
- 1.Lehman JA Jr (1987) Soft-tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 14:767–783Google Scholar
- 4.Amini F, Razavian ZS, Rakhshan V (2016) Soft tissue cephalometric norms of Iranian class I adults with good occlusions and balanced faces. Int Orthod 14:108–122Google Scholar
- 6.Albarakati SF, Bindayel NA (2012) Holdaway soft tissue cephalometric standards for Saudi adults. King Saud Univ J Dent Sci 3:27–32Google Scholar
- 9.Mohajerani H, Karimi F, Mohajerani A, Rakhshan V (2013) Incidence and risk factors of functional upper airway complications of primary esthetic closed rhinoplasty in two residency programs: a 6-month preliminary prospective cohort study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10:74–80Google Scholar
- 11.Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318Google Scholar
- 12.Oh HS, Korn EL, Zhang X, Liu Y, Xu T, Boyd R et al (2009) Correlations between cephalometric and photographic measurements of facial attractiveness in Chinese and US patients after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:762 e1–762 14 discussion -3Google Scholar
- 15.Brons R (1998) Facial harmony: standards for orthognathic surgery and orthodontics. Quintessence, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 17.Khosravanifard B, Raeisi E, Oliadarani FK, Rakhshan V (2018) Soft-tissue anthropometric norms of Iranians with proper occlusion and inter-ethnic norm comparisons. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 17:(4)588–596Google Scholar
- 19.Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Dellavia C, Schmitz JH (2001) Harmonic analysis of facial profiles: a 10-year evaluation. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 16:54–60Google Scholar
- 22.Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A, Sigler LM, McNamara JA, Jr ( 2012) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profiles of Turkish and European-American young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Eur J Orthod 34(3):296–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq165
- 24.Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr (2002) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 72:72–80Google Scholar
- 25.Moghbel B, Sodagar A, Etezadi T (2010) Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Iranian adolescents. Iran J Orthod 5:32–38Google Scholar
- 26.Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751Google Scholar
- 30.Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210Google Scholar
- 32.Foster EJ (1973) Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 43:34–40Google Scholar
- 40.Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H (2004) Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:640–647Google Scholar
- 42.Alavi S, Okhravi SM, Mamavi T (2013) Evaluation of facial soft tissue profile in 6-15 years old children with normal occlusion in Isfahan. Res J Med Sci 7:80–85Google Scholar
- 43.Ricketts RM (1957) Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 27:14–37Google Scholar
- 44.Epker BN, Stella JP, Fish LC (1995) Dentofacial deformities: integrated orthodontic and surgical correction, 2nd edn. Mosby, MissouriGoogle Scholar
- 49.Kasai K, Richards LC, Brown T (1993) Comparative study of craniofacial morphology in Japanese and Australian aboriginal populations. Hum Biol 65:821–834Google Scholar
- 51.Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V (2019) Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile. Am J Orthod Orofacial Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.020
- 52.Ghorbany Javadpour F, Khanemasjedi M (2014) Soft tissue facial profile and anteroposterior lip positioning in Iranians. Shahid Beheshti Dent J 32:90–95Google Scholar
- 53.Jacobson A, Jacobson RL (2007) Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3-D imaging, 2nd edn. Quintessence, Hanover ParkGoogle Scholar
- 58.Burstone CJ (1959) Integumental contour and extension patterns. Angle Orthod 29:93–104Google Scholar
- 60.Alessandra P, Barnett J (1959) The integumental profile and its supporting dentoskeletal framework. Master of Science Thesis, University of TexasGoogle Scholar
- 62.Abdul-Qadir MY, Ne’am FA (2013) Evaluation of Holdaway soft tissue analysis for Iraqi adults with Class I normal occlusion. Al-Rafidain Dent J:8Google Scholar
- 63.Ahangar Atashi MH, Kachooei M (2008) Soft tissue cephalometric standards based on NHP in a sample of Iranian adults. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2:53–57Google Scholar
- 66.Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177–190Google Scholar
- 67.Imani MM, Hosseini SA, Arab S, Delavarian M (2018) Characterization of soft tissue cephalometric norms of Kurdish population of Iran. J Res Med Dent Sci 6:335–342Google Scholar
- 69.Farkas LG, Kolar JC (1987) Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg 14:599–616Google Scholar
- 71.Al-Jasser NM (2003) Facial esthetics in a selected Saudi population. Saudi Med J 24:1000–1005Google Scholar