Advertisement

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 588–596 | Cite as

Soft-Tissue Anthropometric Norms of Iranians with Proper Occlusion and Inter-Ethnic Norm Comparisons

  • Behnam Khosravanifard
  • Elham Raeisi
  • Fatemeh Kadkhodaei Oliadarani
  • Vahid Rakhshan
Original Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Photographic soft-tissue norms of Iranian race are not reported previously, nor are they compared with other ethnicities. Besides, sex dimorphism is assessed in only very few studies on soft-tissue profile. The aim of this study was to assess the soft-tissue measurements of Iranians with good occlusion and the existing sex dimorphism and to compare the Iranian norms with other ethnicities.

Materials and Methods

Twelve anthropometric variables were measured by a dentist in 100 Iranian subjects with good occlusions. The subjects included 50 males and 50 females. The differences between the two genders, as well as the differences between Iranian norms and the norms in all other ethnicities available in the literature were statistically analyzed using a t test (α = 0.05).

Results

There were significant differences between males and females regarding frontonasal angle (P = 0.0000), mentolabial sulcus (P = 0.0000), vertical height ratio (P = 0.0000), vertical lip–chin ratio (P = 0.0013), nasolabial angle (P = 0.0019), lower vertical height–depth ratio (P = 0.0029), maxillary prognathism (P = 0.0045), and mandibular prognathism (P = 0.0118). The difference in facial convexity was marginally significant (P = 0.0543). Protrusions of both lips and horizontal distance between the lips were not significantly different between sexes (P > 0.2).

Conclusions

Unlike Americans and Brazilians but similar to Koreans, there was considerable sex dimorphism in Iranians. Compared to Iranian men, women might have more convex profiles, more advanced mandibles (unlike all other races studied), more protruded maxillae, lips closer to the middle of nose-chin vertical distance, deeper mentolabial sulci, less protruded noses with higher nose tips, and smaller lower faces.

Keywords

Anthropometry Ethnic groups Orthodontic photography Sex dimorphism 

Notes

Authors’ Contribution

BK mentored the thesis on photographic factors associated with beauty (published earlier). ER selected and photographed subjects and conceived the use of data pertaining to the first phase of thesis (not published as thesis or article) to compare male/female norms. VR conceived the use of first phase data for male/female and inter-ethnic comparisons, searched the literature, collected published norms of other countries, statistically compared the measurements between males and females and between Iranians with other countries, prepared the figures and tables, and drafted/revised the article. FKO participated in literature search and article revision.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    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 34:296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oshagh M, Salehi P, Pakshir H, Bazyar L, Rakhshan V (2011) Associations between normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment needs in young-adult dental patients. Kor J Orthod 41:440–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 72:72–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Raeesi E (2013) Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayat M, Shariati M, Rajaeirad F, Yekaninejad MS, Momen-heravi F, Davoudmanesh Z (2016) Facial anthropometric norms of the young Iranian population. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 1–8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamdan AM (2010) Soft tissue morphology of Jordanian adolescents. Angle Orthod 80:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trevisan F, Gil CTLA (2006) Photogrametric and subjective analysis of the facial profile in young subjects with normal occlusion. Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial. 11:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, Grandi G, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2008) Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive and normal adolescent boys and girls. Angle Orthod 78:799–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowman SJ (1999) More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 130:1173–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brons R (1998) Facial harmony: standard for orthognathic surgery and orthodontics. Quintessence publishing Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bass NM (1991) The aesthetic analysis of the face. Eur J Orthod 13:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 114:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen DD, Turley PK (1998) Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 114:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scavone H Jr, Trevisan H Jr, Garib DG, Ferreira FV (2006) Facial profile evaluation in Japanese-Brazilian adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129(721):e1–e5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng’ang’a PM, Rugh JD et al (2009) Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135:S87–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H (2004) Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:640–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foster EJ (1973) Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 43:34–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM (2002) Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 104:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Gunaid T, Yamada K, Yamaki M, Saito I (2007) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Yemeni men. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 132(576):e7–e14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH (1992) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1184–1189 (Discussion 9–90) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 Dentofacial Orthop. 136(762):e1–e14 (Discussion 3) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skinazi GL, Lindauer SJ, Isaacson RJ (1994) Chin, nose, and lips. Normal ratios in young men and women. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:518–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amini F, Rakhshan V, Babaei P (2012) Prevalence and pattern of hypodontia in the permanent dentition of 3374 Iranian orthodontic patients. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 9:245–250Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amini F, Rakhshan V, Jamalzadeh S (2013) Prevalence and pattern of accessory teeth (hyperdontia) in permanent dentition of 3374 Iranian orthodontic patients. Iran J Public HealthGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rakhshan V (2013) Meta-analysis and systematic review of congenitally missing teeth in permanent dentition: Prevalence and biasing factors. Prog OrthodGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comput Psychol 108:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rakhshan V, Nateghian N, Ordoubazari M (2012) Risk factors associated with external apical root resorption of the maxillary incisors: a 15-year retrospective study. Aust Orthod J 28:51–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rakhshan V, Rakhshan H, Sheibaninia A (2009) Developing an automatic lateral cephalometric landmark identification program and evaluating its performance. Int J Comput Dent 12:327–343PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Behnam Khosravanifard
    • 1
  • Elham Raeisi
    • 2
  • Fatemeh Kadkhodaei Oliadarani
    • 3
  • Vahid Rakhshan
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Orthodontics, Dental BranchAzad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Dentist in Private PracticeTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental SchoolShahed UniversityTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Dental Anatomy and Morphology, Dental BranchAzad UniversityTehranIran
  5. 5.TehranIran

Personalised recommendations