STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The importance of the midline is well known to dentists. Currently, there are no verifiable guidelines that direct the choice of specific anatomic landmarks to determine the midline of the face or midline of the mouth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the hierarchy of facial anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the face as well as midline of the mouth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three commonly used anatomic landmarks, nasion, tip of the nose, and tip of the philtrum, were marked clinically on 249 subjects (age range: 21-45 years). Frontal full-face digital images of the subjects in smile were then made under standardized conditions. A total of 107 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Upon applying exclusion criteria, images of 87 subjects were used for midline analysis using a novel concept called the Esthetic Frame. Deviations from the midlines of the face and mouth were measured for the 3 clinical landmarks; the existing dental midline was considered as the fourth landmark. The entire process of midline analysis was done by a single observer and repeated twice. Reliability analysis and 1-sample t tests were conducted at alpha values of .001 and .05, respectively. RESULTS: The results indicated that each of the 4 landmarks deviated uniquely and significantly (P<.001) from the midlines of the face as well as the mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the hierarchy of anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the face in smile was as follows: the midline of the oral commissures, natural dental midline, tip of philtrum, nasion, and tip of the nose. The hierarchy of anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the oral commissures was: natural dental midline, tip of philtrum, tip of the nose, and nasion. These relationships were the same for both genders and all ethnicities classified.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The importance of the midline is well known to dentists. Currently, there are no verifiable guidelines that direct the choice of specific anatomic landmarks to determine the midline of the face or midline of the mouth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the hierarchy of facial anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the face as well as midline of the mouth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three commonly used anatomic landmarks, nasion, tip of the nose, and tip of the philtrum, were marked clinically on 249 subjects (age range: 21-45 years). Frontal full-face digital images of the subjects in smile were then made under standardized conditions. A total of 107 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Upon applying exclusion criteria, images of 87 subjects were used for midline analysis using a novel concept called the Esthetic Frame. Deviations from the midlines of the face and mouth were measured for the 3 clinical landmarks; the existing dental midline was considered as the fourth landmark. The entire process of midline analysis was done by a single observer and repeated twice. Reliability analysis and 1-sample t tests were conducted at alpha values of .001 and .05, respectively. RESULTS: The results indicated that each of the 4 landmarks deviated uniquely and significantly (P<.001) from the midlines of the face as well as the mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the hierarchy of anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the face in smile was as follows: the midline of the oral commissures, natural dental midline, tip of philtrum, nasion, and tip of the nose. The hierarchy of anatomic landmarks closest to the midline of the oral commissures was: natural dental midline, tip of philtrum, tip of the nose, and nasion. These relationships were the same for both genders and all ethnicities classified.
Authors: Abolfazl Farahani; Karim Jafari; Ali Hemmati; Abbas Naghizadeh; Rahman Nemati; Mohammad Hossein Farahani Journal: Turk J Orthod Date: 2019-12-01
Authors: Naseer Ahmed; Mohamad Syahrizal Bin Halim; Zuryati Ab Ghani; Zafar Ali Khan; Maria Shakoor Abbasi; Nafij Bin Jamayet; Mohammad Khursheed Alam Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Naseer Ahmed; Mohamad Syahrizal Halim; Ayesha Aslam; Zuryati Ab Ghani; Jawad Safdar; Mohammad Khursheed Alam Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Derek A Sanders; Taranpreet K Chandhoke; Flavio A Uribe; Paul H Rigali; Ravindra Nanda Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 2.750