Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Evaluative Study on Forehead Morphology of Individuals with Normal Occlusion and Position of Maxillary Incisor in Accordance to Forehead Morphology

정상교합자의 이마형태와 그에 따른 상악 전치의 위치 평가

  • Lee, Su-Yong (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University) ;
  • Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University) ;
  • Jung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Min (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
  • 이수용 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정과학교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정과학교실) ;
  • 차경석 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정과학교실) ;
  • 정동화 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정과학교실) ;
  • 이상민 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과교정과학교실)
  • Received : 2013.06.15
  • Accepted : 2013.09.25
  • Published : 2013.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, 37 subjects with normal facial shape and normal occlusion are classified and reference value for such classification was investigated. Difference in position of maxillary incisor was studied according to the cl assification. Moreover, by investigating correlation between factors affecting forehead morphology and positio n of maxillary incisor, following results have been obtained. 1. Morphology of forehead can be classified as angular type, round type, straight type, and concave type. 2. There were no specific reference value for evaluation of forehead morphology but possibilities of evaluating forehead morphology using S value and forehead length (Tri-Gla) still remain. 3. There were no correlation between forehead morphology and position of maxillary incisor. 4. Forehead inclination and Andrew analysis show statistically significant negative correlation. That is, as forehead inclination increases, maxillary incisor is positioned posteriorly and this relationship can be shown as following equation, Andrew analysis = -0.39*Forehead inclination.

본 연구는 정상 안모이면서 정상교합자인 37명을 대상으로 이마 형태를 분류한 후 분류 기준값을 찾아보았고 이마 분류에 따른 상악 전치의 위치차이를 연구하였다. 또 이마형태에 영향을 주는 인자들과 상악 전치의 위치와의 상관관계를 조사하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. 이마의 형태는 angular, round, straight, concave 형태로 구분 가능하다. 2. 이마의 형태를 분류할 수 있는 특정 기준 값은 존재하지 않았지만 S value와 이마길이(Tri-Gla)를 이용하여 이마형태의 분류 가능성이 존재하였다. 3. 이마의 형태에 따른 상악 전치의 위치는 차이는 존재하지 않았다. 4. 이마 기울기와 Andrews 분석값은 유의한 음의 상관관계를 갖는다. 즉 이마 기울기가 커질수록 상악 전치는 후방 위치하게 되며 다음과 같은 공식 Andrew analysis = -0.39*Forehead inclination으로 표현할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Dorsey J, Korabik K. Social and psychological motivations for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1977:72;460. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(77)90369-4
  2. Kilpelainen PV, Phillips C, Tulloch JF. Anterior tooth position and motivation for early treatment. Angle Orthod 1993:63;171-4.
  3. McKiernan EX, McKiernan F, Jones ML. Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1992:7;187-98.
  4. Andrews WA. AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. Angle Orthod 2008:78;662-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0662:AROTMC]2.0.CO;2
  5. Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948:34;812-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(48)90015-3
  6. Downs WB. The role of cephalometrics in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1952:38;162-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(52)90106-1
  7. Downs WB. Variations in facial proportions. important factors in their management and prognoses. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1970:2;5-22.
  8. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953:39;729-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
  9. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 2012:29;8-29.
  10. Tabbenor O. Essentials of orthognathic surgery, 2nd edition. Br Dent J 2011:210;495-6.
  11. Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 1958:44;1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(58)90178-7
  12. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967:53;262-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X
  13. Vig R, Brundo G. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent 1978:39;502-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80179-6
  14. McNamara Jr. JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984:86;449-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90352-X
  15. Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2010:5;229-34.
  16. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971:60;111-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
  17. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 2. conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971:60;505-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90116-3
  18. Kvam E, Krogstad O. Variability in tracings pf lateral head plates for diagnostic orthodontic purposes. A methodologic study. Acta Odontol Scan 2012:27;359-6.
  19. Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Journal of Orthodontics 1988:15;105-10. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.15.2.105
  20. Tourne LP, Bevis RL, Cavanaugh G. A validity test of cephalometric variables as a measure of clinical applicability in anteroposterior profile assessment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1993:8;95-112.
  21. Cox NH, van der Linden FPGM. Facial harmony. Am J Orthod 1971:60;175-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90033-9
  22. Tulloch C, Phillips C, Dann C, 4th. Cephalometric measures as indicators of facial attractiveness. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1993:8;171-9.
  23. Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN. The use of three-dimensional techniquesin facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995:1;94-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(95)80096-4
  24. Hambleton RS. The orthodontic curtain. Angle Orthod 2012:33;294-8.
  25. Hambleton RS. The soft-tissue covering of the skeletal face as related to orthodontic problems. Am J Orthod 1964:50;405-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(64)90204-0
  26. Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966:52;804-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(66)90250-8
  27. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA, Deutsch C, Munro IR. Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. Am J Orthod 1984:86;52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90276-8
  28. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. part I. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993:103;299-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L
  29. William Arnett G, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning - part II. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993:103;395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81791-3
  30. Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999:116;373-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70222-2
  31. Adrews LF. The six element of orofacial harmony Foundation for orthodontic education and research, 1999.
  32. Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969:55;566-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90034-7
  33. Friede H. Normal development and growth of the human neurocranium and cranial base. Scand J Plast Surg Recontr Surg Hand Surg 2012:15;163-9.
  34. Lieberman DE, Pearson OM, Mowbray KM. Basicranial influence on overall cranial shape. J Hum Evol 2000:38:291-315. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1999.0335
  35. Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969:55:566-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90034-7
  36. Friede H. Normal development and growth of the human neurocranium and cranial base. Scand J Plast Surg Recontr Surg Hand Surg 2012:15:163-9.
  37. Lieberman DE, Pearson OM, Mowbray KM. Basicranial influence on overall cranial shape. J Hum Evol 2000:38:291-315. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1999.0335
  38. Farkas LG. J Plastic and Reconstruction surgery 1985:75;509-1. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198504000-00011
  39. Proffit WR. et al, editor. Contemporay treatment of dentofacial deformity mosby press;2003.
  40. Lee SY, Cha KS. The study on ideal position of upper incisor based on head in normal occlusion. Dankook university. 2000.
  41. Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion Angle Orthod 1952:141-145.
  42. Shudy FF. Cant 0f the occlusal plane and axial inclinationof teeth, Angle Orthod 1963:33;69-82.
  43. Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communications, Am. J. Orthod 1960:46;330-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90047-6