Degree of facial profile convexity using Subtelny’s analysis in patients aged 6 to 12 years

Vanessa Dominique; Riko Nofrizal

doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.81931

Degree of facial profile convexity using Subtelny’s analysis in patients aged 6 to 12 years

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.81931

Vanessa Dominique^(1*), Riko Nofrizal⁽²⁾

(1) Faculty of Dentistry, Trisakti University, Jakarta
(2) Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trisakti University, Jakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Skeletal malocclusion is caused by a disproportion of the maxilla and mandible, which leads to an unharmonious facial profile. Straight, convex, and concave soft tissue profiles may serve as a guide to determine the underlying skeletal relations and location of the jaws from the anteroposterior plane. In this study, Subtelny’s cephalometric analysis of the skeletal and soft tissue profile is used to evaluate the facial profile convexity and is divided into three parts, which are the skeletal profile convexity, soft tissue profile convexity, and total soft tissue profile convexity. The purpose of this study is to determine the degree of facial profile convexity according to Subtelny’s analysis in patients aged 6 to 12 years at Faculty of Dentistry Dental Hospital of Trisakti University. This was a descriptive observational study using samples of cephalograms of 40 patients aged 6 to 12 years. Cephalometry tracing and identification of anatomical landmarks were done to acquire the facial profile convexity degrees. The anatomical landmarks used were nasion, A-point, pogonion, soft tissue nasion, subnasale, pronasale, and soft tissue pogonion. The results of this study found that the average degree of the skeletal profile convexity was 171.26°, the soft tissue profile convexity was 166.18°, and the total soft tissue profile convexity was 144.83°. The degrees of skeletal profile convexity, soft tissue profile convexity, and total soft tissue profile convexity could be influenced by age, gender, and differences in growth and changes in the skeletal and facial soft tissue structures.

Keywords

facial profile; skeletal profile; soft tissue profile; Subtelny’s cephalometric analysis

Full Text:

5. Vanesa

References

1. Zhou Z, Liu F, Shen S, Shang L, Shang L, Wang X. Prevalence of and factors affecting
malocclusion in primary dentition among children in Xi’an, China. BMC Oral Health. 2016;
16(1): 91. doi: 10.1186/s12903-016-0285-x

2. Himammi AN, Hartomo BT. Kegunaan radiografi panoramik pada masa mixed
dentition. J Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial Indonesia. 2021; 5(1): 39.
doi: 10.32793/jrdi.v5i1.663

3. Dimberg L, Lennartsson B, Soderfeldt B, Bondemark L. Malocclusions in children at 3
and 7 years of age: a longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35(1): 131–137. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr110

4. Dimberg L, Lennartsson B, Arnrup K, Bondemark L. Prevalence and change of
malocclusions from primary to early permanent dentition: A longitudinal study. Angle Orthod.
2015; 85(5): 728–34. doi: 10.2319/080414-542.1

5. Yu X, Zhang H, Sun L, Pan J, Liu Y, Chen L. Prevalence of malocclusion and occlusal
traits in the early mixed dentition in Shanghai, China. PeerJ. 2019; 7: e6630.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.6630

6. Taner L, Metin Gursoy G, Deniz Uzuner F. Does gender have an effect on craniofacial
measurements? Turk J Orthod. 2019; 32(02): 59–64. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18031

7. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for
assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018; 23(5): 75–81.
doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.5.075-081.oar

8. Lin NH, Soemantri ESS, Gayatri G. Changes in soft tissue facial profile of class II skeletal
malocclusion patients with retrognathic mandible treated with twin block appliance.
Padjadjaran J Dent. 2019; 31(1): 32–37. doi: 10.24198/pjd.vol31no1.21154

9. Li C, Cai Y, Chen S, Chen F. Classification and characterization of class III malocclusion
in Chinese individuals. Head Face Med. 2016; 12(1): 31. doi: 10.1186/s13005-016-0127-8

10. Singh S, Singla L, Anand T. Esthetic considerations in orthodontics: an overview.
Dent J Adv Stud. 2021; 9(02): 55–60. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1726473

11. Shamlan MA, Aldrees AM. Hard and soft tissue correlations in facial profiles: a canonical
correlation study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015; 7: 9–15. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S73457

12. Norman NH, Lepi JM. Evolution of facial profile and soft tissue methods of orthodontic
assessments: A narrative review. J Int Oral Health. 2022; 14(3): 215–221.
doi: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_302_21

13. Ibrahim TS, Nofrizal R. Tingkat kebutuhan dan perubahan hasil perawatan ortodonti
berdasarkan indeks ICON (Kajian pada Pasien Klinik Ortodonti RSGM-P FKG USAKTI). J Kedokt Gigi Terpadu. 2021; 3(2): 39–42. doi: 10.25105/jkgt.v3i2.12633

14. Al-Zubaidi SH. The Skeletal and Soft Tissue Facial Profile in Adolescent and Adult. In:
Sosa FC, editor. Recent Research Advances in Biology Vol 1. Book Publisher International;
2020.

15. Jenkins FR. Craniofacial growth and the cellular basis of tooth movement. In: An
Introduction to Orthodontics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. 37–49.

16. Wishney M, Darendeliler MA, Dalci O. Craniofacial growth studies in orthodontic
research — lessons, considerations and controversies. Aust Orthod J. 2018; 34(1):
61–69. doi: 10.21307/aoj-2020-059

17. Ardani IGAW. Prinsip Pertumbuhan Kraniofasial. In: Dasar Pertumbuhan
Kraniofasial Setelah Kelahiran. Surabaya: Airlangga University Press; 2021. 1–2.

18. Nielsen IL. Factors affecting mandibular growth and displacement and their effect on treatment outcome. Taiwan J Orthod. 2022; 34(3): 127–137. doi: 10.38209/2708-2636.1134

19. Sharma P, Arora A, Valiathan A. Age changes of jaws and soft tissue profile. Sci World J.
2014; 2014: 1–7. doi: 10.1155/2014/301501

20. Hatal S, Buyuk SK. Relationship of psychosociocultural factors with dental
malocclusion and facial appearance. APOS Trends Orthod. 2022; 13(1): 22–29.
doi: 10.25259/apos_120_2022

21. Farchani N. Hubungan Derajat Kecembungan Jaringan Keras Terhadap Jaringan Lunak
Wajah dengan Metode Subtelny pada Laki-Laki dan Perempuan Suku Jawa. Skripsi. Malang: Universitas Brawijaya; 2018.

22. Manohar MR, Goswami P. The nose and its clinical implications in orthodontics: An
overview. CODS J Dent. 2015; 7(2): 71–75. doi: 10.5005/cods-7-2-71

23. Perović T, Blažej Z. Male and female characteristics of facial soft tissue thickness in
different orthodontic malocclusions evaluated by cephalometric radiography. Med Sci Monit.
2018; 24: 3415–3424. doi: 10.12659/MSM.907485

24. Sayuti E. Correlation of inter incisal angle and facial profile after retraction of anterior teeth.
Int J Med Sci Clin Invent. 2018; 5(9): 4048–4051. doi: 10.18535/ijmsci/v5i9.03

25. Darkwah WK, Kadri A, Adormaa BB, Aidoo G. Cephalometric study of the relationship
between facial morphology and ethnicity: Review article. Transl Res Anat. 2018; 12:
20–24. doi: 10.1016/j.tria.2018.07.001

26. Shindy RA, Sahelangi OP. Gambaran hasil analisis sefalometri pada pasien Ras Deutro
Melayu usia 8-12 tahun menggunakan analisis ricketts. J Kedokt Gigi Terpadu. 2020;
2(1): 19–22.

27. Hu Y, Abbasi N ul H, Zhang Y, Chen H. the effect of target sex, sexual dimorphism, and
facial attractiveness on perceptions of target attractiveness and trustworthiness. Front
Psychol. 2018; 9(942): 1–8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00942

28. Butovskaya ML, Rostovtseva V v., Mezentseva AA. Facial and body sexual dimorphism are
not interconnected in the Maasai. J Physiol Anthropol. 2022; 41(1): 3.
doi: 10.1186/s40101-021-00276-8

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.81931