Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2015

01-07-2015 | Original article

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

Authors: Dr. A. Wasserstein, N. Shpack, Y.B. Yoseph, S. Geron, M. Davidovitch, A. Vardimon

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
Ackerman JL, Proffit WR (1997) Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod 67:327–336PubMed
2.
Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:299–312PubMedCrossRef
3.
Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:395–411PubMedCrossRef
4.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
7.
Downs WB (1956) Analysis of the dento-facial profile. Angle Orthod 26:191–212
8.
Menezes M de, Rosati R, Allievi C et al (2009) A photographic system for the three-dimensional study of facial morphology. Angle Orthod 79:1070–1077PubMedCrossRef
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–e181PubMedCrossRef
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 24:46–51PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Holdaway RA (1983) A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 84:1–28PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kapilla S, Conely RS, Harrell WE Jr (2011) The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:24–34CrossRef
14.
Kau CH, Zhurov A, Richmond S et al (2006) Facial templates: a new perspective in three dimensions. Orthod Craniofac Res 9:10–17PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Strand F et al (2010) 3D Soft tissue analysis. Part 1: Sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop 71:40–52PubMedCrossRef
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 6:321–331PubMed
18.
Maillie HD, Gilda JE (1993) Radiation-induced cancer risk in radiographic cephalometry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 75:631–637PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Merrifield L (1966) The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 52:804–822PubMedCrossRef
21.
Nanda RS, Ghosh J, Bazakidou E (1996) Three dimentional facial analysis using a video imaging system. Angle Orthod 66:181–188PubMed
22.
Neger MA (1959) A quantitative method for the evaluation of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod 45:738–775CrossRef
23.
Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318PubMed
24.
Ras F, Habets LL, Ginkel FC van et al (1996) Quantification of facial morphology using stereophotogrammetry—demonstration of a new concept. J Dent 24:369–374PubMedCrossRef
25.
Reyneke JP, Ferretti C (2012) Clinical assessment of the face. Semin Orthod 18:172–186CrossRef
26.
27.
Sommerville JM, Sperry TP, BeGole EA (1988) Morphology of the submental and neck region. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 3:97–106PubMed
28.
29.
Stoner MM (1955) A photometric analysis of the facial profile. A method of assessing facial change induced by orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 41:453–469CrossRef
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 45:481–507CrossRef
31.
Turpin DL (2008) British Orthodontic Society revises guidelines for clinical radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:597–598PubMedCrossRef
32.
Turpin DL (2010) Clinical guidelines and the use of cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138:1–2PubMedCrossRef
33.
Wong RW, Chau AC, Hägg U (2011) 3D CBCT cephalometric analysis in an adult southern Chinese population. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:920–925PubMedCrossRef
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 131:67–71PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of lateral photographic and radiographic sagittal analysis in relation to Angle’s classification
Authors
Dr. A. Wasserstein
N. Shpack
Y.B. Yoseph
S. Geron
M. Davidovitch
A. Vardimon
Publication date
01-07-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0292-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2015 Go to the issue

Original article

Effectiveness of two different splints to treat temporomandibular disorders

Original article

Dimensional accuracy of jaw scans performed on alginate impressions or stone models

Original article

Association of temporomandibular disorder pain with awake and sleep bruxism in adults

Original article

Agenesis of second premolars and delayed dental maturation

Original article

Physical properties of different orthodontic cements

Informationen

Mitteilungen 4/15