4.3 Article

Assessment of the soft tissue thickness at the lower anterior face in adult patients with different skeletal vertical patterns using cone-beam computed tomography

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 85, Issue 2, Pages 211-217

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/040114-237.1

Keywords

Vertical pattern; Soft tissue thickness; Cone-beam computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate and compare the soft tissue thickness values at the lower anterior face among adult patients with different vertical growth patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Material and Methods: The study sample consisted of 105 adult patients (54 women and 51 men) with a normal sagittal skeletal pattern divided into three groups according to the vertical growth pattern: high-angle (women/men, 22/13; mean age, 24.54 +/- 4.45 years), low-angle (women/men, 14/21; mean age, 24.62 +/- 5.08 years), and normal-angle (women/men, 18/17; mean age, 24.22 +/- 5.40 years) groups. The soft tissue thickness measurements at the lower anterior face in each group were done and analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests. Results: Soft tissue thickness values were the lowest in the high-angle group for both women and men. For women, the thickness values at the labrale superius, labrale inferius, and pogonion were found to be statistically significantly smaller in the high-angle group (11.49 +/- 1.05 mm, 12.70 +/- 1.92 mm, and 11.64 +/- 2.65 mm, respectively) compared with the values in the normal-angle group (13.31 +/- 2.01 mm, 15.08 +/- 1.94 mm, and 14.69 +/- 3.08 mm, respectively) (P < .05, P < .05, and P < .01, respectively). For men, however, no statistically significant differences were found among the vertical growth patterns (P > .05). Conclusion: Women had statistically significantly thinner thickness at the labrale superius, labrale inferius, and pogonion in the high-angle group compared with the normal-angle group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available