Oral Radiology

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 161–171 | Cite as

Associations between mandibular symphysis form and craniofacial structures

  • Yolanda Gómez
  • Verónica García-Sanz
  • Natalia Zamora
  • Beatriz Tarazona
  • Carlos Bellot-Arcís
  • Erik Langsjoen
  • Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo
Original Article
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to (1) analyze the relationships between mandibular symphysis characteristics (height, prominence, inclination, concavity, and convexity) and facial pattern, skeletal class, lower incisor position, and sex, and (2) determine the associations between the symphysis soft tissue dimensions and the underlying osseous structures.

Methods

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were selected for 385 patients (206 women and 179 men). The patients were classified according to their skeletal class and vertical pattern. The lower incisor inclination (IMPA) was recorded. Twelve measurements were taken for each mandibular symphysis using Invivo5 software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA, USA).

Results

Symphyseal measurements were larger in males than in females. Skeletal Class II and III hyperdivergent patients showed the highest symphysis height values. Hypodivergent individuals showed lower symphysis convexity angles. Concavity of the symphysis was greater for Class II hyperdivergent patients. Lower incisor inclination showed a positive correlation with symphysis concavity and inclination. Moderate and weak correlations were found between hard tissue and soft tissue parameters.

Conclusions

Only a few characteristics of symphysis morphology depend on sex, incisor position, skeletal class, and vertical pattern. More significant relationships are found when the vertical pattern and skeletal class are analyzed in combination. The shape of the symphysis soft tissue is not directly correlated with the underlying skeletal structures.

Keywords

Mandibular symphysis facial profile Hard tissue Soft tissue Chin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank William James Packer for translating the manuscript into English.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Yolanda Gómez, Verónica García-Sanz, Natalia Zamora, Beatriz Tarazona, Carlos Bellot-Arcís, Erik Langsjoen, and Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statements

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod. 1990;60:177–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoenig JF. Sliding osteotomy genioplasty for facial aesthetic balance: 10 years of experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31:384–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1996;52:804–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shindoi JM, Matsumoto Y, Sato Y, Ono T, Harada K. Soft tissue cephalometric norms for orthognathic and cosmetic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:e24–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buschang PH, Julien K, Sachdeva R, Demirjian A. Childhood and pubertal growth changes of the human symphysis. Angle Orthod. 1992;62:203–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40:284–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riedel RA. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1975;43:103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:S109–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun L, Zhang L, Shen G, Wang B, Fang B. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in detecting alveolar bone dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:313–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gu Y, McNamara JA Jr, Sigler LM, Baccetti T. Comparison of craniofacial characteristics of typical Chinese and Caucasian young adults. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sherwood RJ, Hlusko LJ, Duren DL, Emch VC, Walker A. Mandibular symphysis of large-bodied hominoids. Hum Biol. 2005;11:735–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talbert L, Kau CH, Christou T, Vlachos C, Souccar N. A 3D analysis of Caucasian and African American facial morphologies in a US population. J Orthod. 2014;41:19–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Khateeb SN, Al Maaitah EF, Abu Alhaija ES, Badran SA. Mandibular symphysis morphology and dimensions in different anteroposterior jaw relationships. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:304–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arruda KEM, Valladares-Neto J, Almeida GA. Assessment of the mandibular symphysis of Caucasian Brazilian adults with well-balanced faces and normal occlusion: the influence of gender and facial type. Dent Press J Orthod. 2012;17:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC, Maki K, Gansky SA, Hatcher D, et al. Cross sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:e377–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod. 1998;68:557–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamada C, Kitai N, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Takada K. Spatial relationships between the mandibular central incisor and associated alveolar bone in adults with mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:766–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu Q, Pan XG, Ji GP, Shen G. The association between lower incisal inclination and morphology of the supporting alveolar bone–a cone-beam CT study. Int J Oral Sci. 2009;1:217–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molina-Berlanga N, Llopis-Perez J, Flores-Mir C, Puigdollers A. Lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and symphysis dimensions among Class I and III malocclusion patients with different facial vertical skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:948–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod. 1959;45:481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macari AT, Hanna AE. Comparisons of soft tissue chin thickness in adult patients with various mandibular divergence patterns. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:708–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent. 2008;17:159–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mordenfeld A, Andersson L, Bergström B. Hemorrhage in the floor of the mouth during implant placement in the edentulous mandible: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:558–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ricketts RM. Cephalometric synthesis. Angle Orthod. 1961;31:141–56.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39:729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tweed CH. The diagnostic facial triangle in the control of treatment objectives. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:651–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Subramaniam P, Naidu P. Mandibular dimensional changes and skeletal maturity. Contemp Clin Dent. 2010;1:218–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthodontics DepartmentUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Orthodontics Department, Division of OrthodonticsUniversity of Minnesota School of DentistryMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations