Soft Tissue Characteristics and Gender Dimorphism in Class III Malocclusion: a Cephalometric Study in Adult Greeks

Download Article

Smaragda Kavvadia1 / Sossani Sidiropoulou-Chatzigianni1 / Georgia Pappa2 / Eleni Markovitsi1 / Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos3

1Department of Orthodontics School of Dentistry Faculty of Health Sciences Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessalonki, Greece
2Private practice, Greece
3Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Summary

Background/Aim: Class III malocclusion case are considered complex problems associated with unacceptable esthetics. The purpose of the present study was to assess the characteristics of the soft tissue profile and investigate the possible gender differences in adult Greeks with Class III malocclusion. Material and Methods: The material of the study comprised of 57 pretreatment lateral cephalograms of adult patients with Class III malocclusion aged 18 to 39 years. Eleven variables were assessed. The variables were measured and the mean, minimum and maximum and standard deviations were calculated. Parametric and non-parametric tests were used to compare males and females patients. Results: The total sample was characterized by concave skeletal profile. Male patients exhibited greater nose prominence and superior sulcus depth, longer distance from subnasale to the harmony line, more concave profile, thicker upper lip and larger upper lip strain. Conclusions: Many significant differences were noted in soft tissue characteristics between males and females with skeletal Class III malocclusion, suggesting possible gender dimorphism.

Keywords: Class III Malocclusion; Soft Tissue; Cephalometry; Gender Dimorphis

Reference

  1. McNamara JA Jr, Brust EW, Riolo ML. Soft tissue evaluation of individuals with an ideal occlusion and a wellbalanced face. In: McNamara JA Jr, editor. Esthetic and the treatment of facial form. Monograph 28, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1993. p. 115-146.Google Scholar
  2. Sarver DM. Esthetic orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. St Louis : Mosby; 1998. p. 1-60.Google Scholar
  3. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod, 1970;40:284-318.Google Scholar
  4. Peck S, Peck L. Facial realities and oral esthetics. In: McNamara JA Jr, editor. Esthetic and the treatment of facial form. Monograph 28, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1993. p. 77-113.Google Scholar
  5. Berscheid E, Gangestade S. The social psychological implications of facial physical attractiveness. Clin Plast Surg, 1982;9:289-296.Google Scholar
  6. Albino JE, Tedesco L. Esthetic need for orthodontic treatment. In: Melsen B. editor. Current Controversies in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publ. Inc.; 1994. p. 11-24.Google Scholar
  7. Dann C, Phillips C, Broder HL, Tulloch JF. Self-concept, Class II malocclusion and early treatment. Angle Orthod, 1995;65:411-416.Google Scholar
  8. Rak D. Cephalometric analysis in cases with Class IIIGoogle Scholar
  9. malocclusions. Stomatol Glas Srb, 1989;36:277-287.Google Scholar
  10. Kajikawa Y. Changes in soft tissue profile after surgical correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. J Oral Surg, 1979;37:167-174.Google Scholar
  11. Profitt WR. Contemporary orthodontics. Mosby: St Louis; 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Suda N, Hiyama S, Kuroda T. Relationship between formation/eruption of maxillary teeth and skeletal pattern of maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2002;121:46-52.Google Scholar
  13. Sato S. Case report: developmental characterization of skeletal Class III malocclusion Angle Orthod, 1994; 64:105-111.Google Scholar
  14. Profitt WR, White R. Jr. Surgical-orthodontic treatment. Mosby: St Louis; 1991. p. 428-429.Google Scholar
  15. Muakeh M, Sulaiman M. Prevalence of malocclusion in a population of Syrian children and adults. Aleppo: Aleppo University JS Res; 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Muakeh M. Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial patterns of Syrian children with Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2001;119:640-649.Google Scholar
  17. El-Mangoury NH, Mostafa YA. Epidemiologic panorama of dental occlusion. Angle Orthod, 1990;60:207-214.Google Scholar
  18. Toms AP. Class III malocclusion: a cephalometric study of Saudi Arabians. Br J Othod, 1989;16:201-206.Google Scholar
  19. Sidiropoulou-Hatzigianni S, Topouzelis N, Kavadia-Tsatala S, Kolokythas G. The dentomaxillofacial Class III anomaly in Northern Greece. Epidemiological study. Stoma, 1995;23:191-201.Google Scholar
  20. Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, Dyer F, Littlewood S, Mattick R, Nute SJ, Doherty B, Stivaros N, McDowall R, Shargill I, Worthington HV. Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. J Orthod, 2016;43:164-175.Google Scholar
  21. Haralabakis N. The role of orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery in managing severe dentoskeletal abnormalities. Hell J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1989;4:75-86.Google Scholar
  22. Profitt WR, Philips C, Prewitt JW, Turvey TA. Stability after surgical orthodontic corrective of skeletal Class III malocclusion. 2. Maxillary advancement. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg, 1991;6:71-80.Google Scholar
  23. Profitt WR, Philips C, Turvey TA. Stability after surgical orthodontic corrective of skeletal Class III malocclusion. 3. Combined maxillary and mandibular procedures. Int J Adult rthod Orthognath Surg, 1991;6:211-225.Google Scholar
  24. Boultault F, Cadenat H. Strategie de la decision en chirourgie orthognatique. 2e partie : le choix esthetique en chirourgie orthognathique-application pratique. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac, 1992;93:287-297.Google Scholar
  25. Athanasiou AE, Mavreas D, Toutountzakis N, Ritzau M. Skeletal stability after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism by vertical ramus osteotomy. Eur J Orthod, 1992;14:117-124.Google Scholar
  26. Athanasiou AE. Morphologic and functional implications of the surgical-orthodontic management of mandibular prognathism: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1993;103:439-447.Google Scholar
  27. Moldez MA, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H, Kawamura H. Long-term dentofacial stability after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal Class III open bite patients. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg, 2000;15:309-319.Google Scholar
  28. Jacobson A. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod, 1981;79:399-415.Google Scholar
  29. Kiyak HA, Hohl T, West RA. Psychologic changes in orthognathic surgery patients: a 24-month follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1984;42:506-512.Google Scholar
  30. Flanary CM, Barnwell GM, Alexander JM. Patients perceptions of orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod, 1985;88:137-145.Google Scholar
  31. Sarver DM. The esthetic impact of orthodontic: planning treatment to meet patient’s needs. J Am Dent Assoc, 1993;124:99-102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod, 1983;84:1-28.Google Scholar
  33. Stapf WC. A cephalometric roentgenographic appraisal of the facial pattern in Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod, 1948;18:20-23.Google Scholar
  34. Sanborn RT. Differences between facial skeletal patterns of Class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod, 1955;25:208-222.Google Scholar
  35. Dietrich UC. Morphological variability of skeletal Class 3 relationship as revealed by cephalometric analysis. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc, 1970;131-143.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobson A, Evans WG, Preston CB, Sadowsky PL. Mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod, 1974;66:140-171.Google Scholar
  37. Ellis E, McNamara JA Jr. Components of adult Class III. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1984;42:295-305.Google Scholar
  38. Koodaryan R, Rafighi A, Hafezeqoran A. Components of Adult Class III Malocclusion in an Iranian Population. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2009;3:20-23.Google Scholar
  39. Slavicek R, Schadlbauer E. Etude et comparison de valeurs cephalometriques regionales en Autriche et en Allemagne. Rev Orthop Dentofacial, 1982;16:417-471.Google Scholar
  40. Haralabakis B, Spirou V, Kolokythas G. Dentofacial cephalometric analysis in adult Greeks with normal occlusion. Eur J Orthod, 1983;5:241-243.Google Scholar
  41. Singh GD, McNamara JA, Lozanoff S. Craniofacial heterogeneity of prepubertal Korean and European- American subjects with Class III malocclusions: Procrustes, EDMA and cephalometric analyses. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognathic Surg, 1998;13:227-240.Google Scholar
  42. Alcalde RE, Jinno T, Orsini MG, Sasaki A, Sugiyama RM, Matsumura T. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000;118:84-89.Google Scholar
  43. Staley RN. Summary of Human Postnatal Growth. In: Bishara SE, editor. Textbook of Orthodontics. New York: WB Saunders Company; 2001. p. 31-42.Google Scholar
  44. Kavadia-Tsatala S. Cephalometric study of the relationships between morphology, size and position of the mandible and anterior facial heights. Doctorate Degree Thesis. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; 1985.Google Scholar
  45. Ricketts RM, Nench R, Cugino C, Hilgers J, Schulhof R. Bioprogressive Therapy. Denver: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics; 1979. p. 71-72.Google Scholar

Citation Information:Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine, ISSN (Online) 2335-0245, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjdm-2017-0028Export Citation

 

 

 

COMMENTS

VOL 21 ISSUE 3

Current Issue