Cone beam computed tomography imaging of sagittal positions of the mandibular prominence and maxillary central incisors in adult Chinese Han men as an aesthetic profile determinant. Issue 43 (23rd October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miao, Pei; Gao, Jie; Lu, Zhiyao; Jin, Zuolin
• Other Names: Zheng. Li Wu section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 99:Issue 43(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-10-23
• Subjects: aesthetic profile -- Andrews the 6 elements of orofacial harmony -- cephalometry -- mandibular prominence -- maxillary central incisors; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022778
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract: Background: To analyze the sagittal positions of the mandibular prominence and maxillary central incisors in adult Chinese Han men to establish their aesthetic profile characteristics. Methods: Seventy-four Chinese Han men aged 18 to 40 years underwent cone beam computed tomography for detecting the distances between Glabella and Subnasale, Subnasale and Menthon of soft tissue, Condyle and Gonion, Pogonion and Pogonion's Anterior Limit Line, Facial Axis point of maxillary central incisor and the Goal Anterior Limit Line as well as the angle of the Occlusal Plane. Dolphin Imaging and Photoshop software packages were used to generate silhouette profiles. Thirteen orthodontists assessed the silhouette profiles and assigned visual analog scale scores. Scores >70 were assigned to the aesthetic (group 1), scores of 60to 70 to the general (group 2), scores of 50 to 60 to the acceptable (group 3), and scores of <50 to the unaesthetic profile (group 4). Results: A total of 15 men were assigned to group 1, 35 to group 2, 14 to group 3, and 10 to group 4. There were no significant differences in the variables examined between groups 1, 2, and 3, but comparing group 1 with group 4, Pogonion and Pogonion's Anterior Limit Line (1.16 ± 2.61 mm vs −1.44 ± 2.92 mm, P = .046) and Facial Axis-Goal Anterior Limit Line (−0.61 ± 2.54 mm vs 1.70 ± 2.62 mm, P = .038) there were significant differences. Conclusion: Compared with the unaesthetic profile group, the sagittal positions of the maxillary central incisors were slightly posterior, and the chin was slightly anterior in adult Chinese Han men with an aesthetic profile.