Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of lateral photographic and radiographic sagittal analysis in relation to Angle’s classification

Vergleich zwischen Auswertungen auf Profilfotos und Fernröntgenseitenbildern bezüglich Angle-Klassen

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The goal of this study was to compare sagittal jaw relationships derived from standardized profile photographs (soft tissue) to those derived from lateral cephalograms (hard tissue) with respect to Angle’s classification of malocclusion.

Methods

A total of 110 randomly selected subjects (mean age: 13.75 ± 1.46 years) undergoing treatment (Postgraduate Program in Orthodontics at Tel Aviv University) were assigned to three groups based on Angle’s classification (Class I: n = 30; Class II: n = 50; Class III: n = 30). Standardized profile-view photographs and lateral radiographs (cephalograms) were compared using 11 soft tissue and 8 skeletal measurements, respectively.

Results

Tragus, infra-orbital, nasion, A point, B point, and pogonion were found to be the most reliable soft tissue reference points. A similar pattern of diversity was found between the three groups of Angle’s classification (Class I/II/III) for the photographic soft,-tissue and the radiographic skeletal measurements (e.g., soft tissue A’N’B’ = 11.43°/13.30°/8.85° and hard tissue ANB = 3.13°/4.64°/− 1.31°). Soft tissue A’N’B’ measurement provides complementary information to hard tissue ANB measurement.

Conclusion

Analyzing profile photographs for evaluating sagittal jaw relationships is a practical tool in determining soft tissue harmony. Soft tissue measurements provide a sagittal differential diagnosis in relation to Angle’s classification of malocclusion.

Zusammenfassung

Studienziel

Vergleich sagittaler Kieferlagebeziehungen anhand von standardisierten Profilfotos (Weichgewebe) gegenüber Fernröntgenseitenbildern (Hartgewebe) im Hinblick auf verschiedene Dysgnathien nach der Angle-Klassifikation.

Methode

Nach dem Zufallsprinzip ausgewählte, im Rahmen des postgradualen Kieferorthopädie-Lehrgangs der Universität Tel Aviv behandelte Patienten (n=110; mittleres Alter 13,75 ± 1,46 Jahre) wurden nach Maßgabe der Angle-Klassifikation in 3 Gruppen eingeteilt (Klasse I: n = 30; II: n = 50; III: n = 30). Die vergleichenden Auswertungen umfassten 11 Weichteilparameter anhand von Profilfotos und acht skelettale Parameter anhand von Fernröntgenseitgenbildern.

Resultate

Als die zuverlässigsten Weichteilreferenzpunkte erwiesen sich Tragus, Infraorbitale, Nasion, A-Punkt, B-Punkt und Pogonion. Zwischen den 3 Gruppen der Angle-Klassifikation (Klasse I, II, III) fand sich ein ähnliches Diversitätsmuster der Werte aus den fotobasierten Weichteil- und den FRS-basierten skelettalen Messungen (z. B. A’N’B‘ = 11,43°/13,30°/8,85° und ANB = 3,13°/4,64°/1,31°). Der Weichteilwinkel A’N’B‘ liefert ergänzende Informationen zum skelettalen ANB-Winkel.

Schlussfolgerung

Auswertungen der sagittalen Kieferlagebeziehung anhand von Profilfotos sind ein praktisches Hilfsmittel zur Bestimmung der Weichteilharmonie. Weichteilmessungen ermöglichen eine sagittale Differenzialdiagnose zwischen Dysgnathien nach der Angle-Klassifikation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR (1997) Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod 67:327–336

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:299–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:395–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burstone CJ (1958) The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 44:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burstone CJ (1967) Lip and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 53:262–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Downs WB (1956) Analysis of the dento-facial profile. Angle Orthod 26:191–212

    Google Scholar 

  8. Menezes M de, Rosati R, Allievi C et al (2009) A photographic system for the three-dimensional study of facial morphology. Angle Orthod 79:1070–1077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Devereux L, Moles D, Cunningham S et al (2011) How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:e175–e181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Generoso R, Sadoco EC, Armond MC et al (2010) Evaluation of mandibular length in subjects with Class I and Class II skeletal patterns using the cervical vertebrae maturation. Braz Oral Res 24:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hatef DA, Koshy JC, Sandoval SE et al (2009) The submental fat compartment of the neck. Semin Plast Surg 23:288–291

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Holdaway RA (1983) A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 84:1–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kapilla S, Conely RS, Harrell WE Jr (2011) The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kau CH, Zhurov A, Richmond S et al (2006) Facial templates: a new perspective in three dimensions. Orthod Craniofac Res 9:10–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleinerman RA (2006) Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol 36(Suppl 2):121–125

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Strand F et al (2010) 3D Soft tissue analysis. Part 1: Sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop 71:40–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kopp S, Kuhmstedt P, Notni G et al (2003) G–Scan—mobile multiview 3-D measuring system for the analysis of the face. Int J Comput Dent 6:321–331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maillie HD, Gilda JE (1993) Radiation-induced cancer risk in radiographic cephalometry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 75:631–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McNamara JA, Arbor A (1984) A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 86:449–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Merrifield L (1966) The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 52:804–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nanda RS, Ghosh J, Bazakidou E (1996) Three dimentional facial analysis using a video imaging system. Angle Orthod 66:181–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neger MA (1959) A quantitative method for the evaluation of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod 45:738–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ras F, Habets LL, Ginkel FC van et al (1996) Quantification of facial morphology using stereophotogrammetry—demonstration of a new concept. J Dent 24:369–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reyneke JP, Ferretti C (2012) Clinical assessment of the face. Semin Orthod 18:172–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ricketts RM (1968) Esthetics, environment and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod 54:272–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sommerville JM, Sperry TP, BeGole EA (1988) Morphology of the submental and neck region. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 3:97–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Steiner CC (1953) Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 39:729–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stoner MM (1955) A photometric analysis of the facial profile. A method of assessing facial change induced by orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 41:453–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Subtenly JD (1959) A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod 45:481–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Turpin DL (2008) British Orthodontic Society revises guidelines for clinical radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:597–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Turpin DL (2010) Clinical guidelines and the use of cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wong RW, Chau AC, Hägg U (2011) 3D CBCT cephalometric analysis in an adult southern Chinese population. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:920–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang X, Hans MG, Graham G et al (2007) Correlations between cephalometric and facial photographic measurements of craniofacial form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:67–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest. Atalia Wasserstein, Nir Shpack, Yossi Ben Yoseph, Silvia Geron, Moshe Davidovitch, and Alexander Vardimon state that there are no conflicts of interest.

Consent was obtained from all patients identifiable from images or other information within the manuscript. In the case of underage patients, consent was obtained from a parent or legal guardian.

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. Atalia Wasserstein, Nir Shpack, Yossi Ben Yoseph, Silvia Geron, Moshe Davidovitch und Alexander Vardimon geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle Patienten, die über Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskripts zu identifizieren sind, haben hierzu ihre schriftliche Einwilligung gegeben. Im Falle von nicht mündigen Patienten liegt die Einwilligung eines Erziehungsberechtigen oder des gesetzlich bestellten Betreuers vor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel

    A. Wasserstein, N. Shpack, S. Geron, M. Davidovitch & A. Vardimon

  2. The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Y.B. Yoseph

Authors
  1. A. Wasserstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Shpack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y.B. Yoseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Geron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Davidovitch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Vardimon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Wasserstein.

Additional information

Atalia Wasserstein and Nir Shpack contributed equally to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wasserstein, A., Shpack, N., Yoseph, Y. et al. Comparison of lateral photographic and radiographic sagittal analysis in relation to Angle’s classification. J Orofac Orthop 76, 294–304 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0292-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0292-6

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation