Mohamed I Masoud1, Neetu Bansal1, Jose C Castillo1, Amornrut Manosudprasit2,3, Veerasathpurush Allareddy4, Arshan Haghi4, Hannah C Hawkins5, Erik Otárola-Castillo5. 1. Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department Orthodontics, Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. 4. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, The University of Iowa, IA, USA, and. 5. Department of Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Abstract
Background: Orthodontic diagnostic standards generally use the cranial base as a reference and rely on samples selected by orthodontists. Objective: The purpose of this study was to provide male and female standards for a novel non-radiographic approach for orthodontic diagnosis that utilizes 3D dentofacial photogrammetry using the eyes and natural head orientation as references instead of the cranial base. Methods: One hundred and eighty females and 200 males between the ages of 18 and 35 years from 2 modeling agencies were orthodontically screened for near ideal occlusion. Subjects that met the inclusion criteria were rated by a sample of 40 lay people for attractiveness on a visual analogue scale. The final sample that had 3D facial and dental imaging included 49 subjects 25 males and 24 females with near ideal occlusion and considered attractive by the public. Results: Inter and Intra-examiner ICC were greater than 0.8 for both landmarking and indexing. Relative to a coronal plane contacting the pupils (MC), the mean sagittal position of the alar curvature (representing the nasomaxillary complex) was 14.36 ± 3.08 mm in males and 12.4 ± 3.58 mm in females. The sagittal position of soft tissue pogonion relative to the pupils was 14.84 ± 3.63 mm in males and 12.78 ± 5.68 mm in females. The angle between the alar curvature and pogonion relative to the pupils was 9° in males and 10° in females. With the exception of the occlusal plane which was steeper in females, no ratios or angular facial measurements showed a significant gender difference. Relative to MC, males had more proclined upper incisors (20° vs 16°) and more retroclined Lower incisors (27° vs 31°; P > 0.05). A Procrustes ANOVA and permutation test showed that the shapes of males and females are different enough to be considered two distinct populations. Conclusions: 1. When using the proposed method for orthodontic diagnosis, male and female patients should be compared to their respective dentofacial standards. 2. Validation of the proposed method and standards on an orthodontic population is underway to determine the scope its use.
Background: Orthodontic diagnostic standards generally use the cranial base as a reference and rely on samples selected by orthodontists. Objective: The purpose of this study was to provide male and female standards for a novel non-radiographic approach for orthodontic diagnosis that utilizes 3D dentofacial photogrammetry using the eyes and natural head orientation as references instead of the cranial base. Methods: One hundred and eighty females and 200 males between the ages of 18 and 35 years from 2 modeling agencies were orthodontically screened for near ideal occlusion. Subjects that met the inclusion criteria were rated by a sample of 40 lay people for attractiveness on a visual analogue scale. The final sample that had 3D facial and dental imaging included 49 subjects 25 males and 24 females with near ideal occlusion and considered attractive by the public. Results: Inter and Intra-examiner ICC were greater than 0.8 for both landmarking and indexing. Relative to a coronal plane contacting the pupils (MC), the mean sagittal position of the alar curvature (representing the nasomaxillary complex) was 14.36 ± 3.08 mm in males and 12.4 ± 3.58 mm in females. The sagittal position of soft tissue pogonion relative to the pupils was 14.84 ± 3.63 mm in males and 12.78 ± 5.68 mm in females. The angle between the alar curvature and pogonion relative to the pupils was 9° in males and 10° in females. With the exception of the occlusal plane which was steeper in females, no ratios or angular facial measurements showed a significant gender difference. Relative to MC, males had more proclined upper incisors (20° vs 16°) and more retroclined Lower incisors (27° vs 31°; P > 0.05). A Procrustes ANOVA and permutation test showed that the shapes of males and females are different enough to be considered two distinct populations. Conclusions: 1. When using the proposed method for orthodontic diagnosis, male and female patients should be compared to their respective dentofacial standards. 2. Validation of the proposed method and standards on an orthodontic population is underway to determine the scope its use.