| Literature DB >> 32089601 |
Dharti Rajubhai Parmar1, Shruti Parthiv Mehta1, Priyanka Vaibhav Sutariya1, Yashpreetsingh Amarjitsingh Bhatia1, Nidhi Kantharia Gupta1.
Abstract
AIM: The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of increased vertical dimension on the lip positions at smile in dentulous subjects. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Display zone area; full-mouth rehabilitation; lip positions; smile index; vertical dimension
Year: 2020 PMID: 32089601 PMCID: PMC7008624 DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_239_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Indian Prosthodont Soc ISSN: 0972-4052
Figure 1Irreversible hydrocolloid maxillary and mandibular impressions
Figure 2Arbitrary facebow transfer done using Hanau™ springbow earpiece facebow
Figure 3Fabrication of bite record in maximum intercuspation
Figure 4Fabrication of bite records at different vertical dimensions at occlusion
Figure 5Head positioning device of Genoray CBCT Machine – Papaya 3D Plus utilized for uniform orientation of the head
Figure 6Posed smile photograph at vertical dimension at occlusion (maximum intercuspation)
Figure 7Parameters measured in AutoCAD software: (1) Interlabial gap height (C-E), (2) intercommissural width (A-B), (3) incisal edge-to-upper lip distance (C-D), and (4) incisal edge-to-lower lip distance (D-E)
Figure 8Tracing of display zone area in AutoCAD software
Results of smile measurements
| Measurement | Occlusal vertical dimension | Mean±SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlabial gap height (mm) | MI | 10.27±2.20 | <0.001 (significant) |
| +1 | 11.13±2.12 | ||
| +2 | 13.05±2.52 | ||
| +3 | 13.55±2.62 | ||
| +4 | 16.13±2.26 | ||
| Intercommissural width (mm) | MI | 61.69±4.82 | 0.839 (not significant) |
| +1 | 62.56±4.20 | ||
| +2 | 62.85±4.50 | ||
| +3 | 62.61±4.37 | ||
| +4 | 63.04±4.10 | ||
| Smile index | MI | 5.60±1.66 | <0.001 (significant) |
| +1 | 5.86±1.45 | ||
| +2 | 4.98±1.19 | ||
| +3 | 4.90±1.49 | ||
| +4 | 3.99±0.68 | ||
| Incisal edge-to-upper lip distance (mm) | MI | 7.28±2.16 | 0.530 (not significant) |
| +1 | 7.63±2.38 | ||
| +2 | 7.68±2.17 | ||
| +3 | 8.06±1.97 | ||
| +4 | 7.76±1.86 | ||
| Incisal edge-to-lower lip distance (mm) | MI | 2.90±2.07 | <0.001 (significant) |
| +1 | 4.08±2.02 | ||
| +2 | 5.73±3.12 | ||
| +3 | 6.41±2.74 | ||
| +4 | 7.51±2.18 | ||
| Display zone area (mm2) | MI | 509±133 | <0.001 (significant) |
| +1 | 630±166 | ||
| +2 | 694±165 | ||
| +3 | 731±190 | ||
| +4 | 803±159 |
MI: Maximum intercuspation, SD: Standard deviation
Results of one-way repeated measures ANOVA
| Source | Type III sum of squares | Df | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interlabial gap height (mm) | 417.647 | 4 | 104.412 | 93.734 | <0.001 |
| Intercommissural width (mm) | 21.442 | 4 | 5.361 | 0.356 | 0.839 |
| Smile index | 42.322 | 4 | 10.581 | 11.300 | <0.0001 |
| Incisal edge-to-upper lip distance (mm) | 6.12 | 4 | 1.53 | 0.79735 | 0.530 |
| Incisal edge-to-lower lip distance (mm) | 271.945 | 4 | 67.986 | 20.901 | <0.001 |
| Display zone area (mm2) | 989,294.860 | 4 | 247,323.715 | 16.250 | <0.001 |
Post hoc Bonferroni’s corrected paired t-tests for intergroup comparison of change in interlabial gap height at different vertical dimensions at occlusion
| Group | Mean difference (mm) | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MI versus +1 mm | 0.87 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +2 mm | 2.78 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +3 mm | 3.28 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +4 mm | 5.86 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +1 mm versus +2 mm | 1.91 | 0.001 | Significant |
| +1 mm versus +3 mm | 2.41 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +1 mm versus +4 mm | 4.99 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +2 mm versus +3 mm | 1.81 | 0.001 | Significant |
| +2 mm versus +4 mm | 3.07 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +3 mm versus +4 mm | 2.58 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
MI: Maximum intercuspation
Post hoc Bonferroni’s corrected paired t-tests for intergroup comparison of change in smile index at different vertical dimensions at occlusion
| Group | Mean difference | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MI versus +1 mm | 0.260 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| MI versus +2 mm | −0.620 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| MI versus +3 mm | −0.697 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| MI versus +4 mm | −1.614 | 0.003 | Significant |
| +1 mm versus +2 mm | −0.880 | 0.002 | Significant |
| +1 mm versus +3 mm | −0.958 | 0.001 | Significant |
| +1 mm versus +4 mm | −1.874 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +2 mm versus +3 mm | −0.078 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| +2 mm versus +4 mm | −0.994 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +3 mm versus +4 mm | −0.917 | 0.008 | Significant |
MI: Maximum intercuspation
Post hoc Bonferroni’s corrected paired t-tests for intergroup comparison of change in incisal edge-to-lower lip distance at different vertical dimensions at occlusion
| Group | Mean difference (mm) | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MI versus +1 mm | 1.18 | 0.272 | Not significant |
| MI versus +2 mm | 2.84 | 0.01 | Significant |
| MI versus +3 mm | 3.51 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +4 mm | 4.61 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +1 mm versus +2 mm | 1.65 | 0.066 | Not significant |
| +1 mm versus +3 mm | 2.34 | 0.003 | Significant |
| +1 mm versus +4 mm | 3.44 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +2 mm versus +3 mm | 0.68 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| +2 mm versus +4 mm | 1.92 | 0.04 | Significant |
| +3 mm versus +4 mm | 1.10 | 0.991 | Not significant |
MI: Maximum intercuspation
Post hoc Bonferroni’s corrected paired t-tests for intergroup comparison of change in display zone area at different vertical dimensions at occlusion
| Group | Mean difference (mm) | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MI versus +1 mm | 121.60 | 0.23 | Not significant |
| MI versus +2 mm | 185.55 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +3 mm | 222.05 | 0.001 | Highly significant |
| MI versus +4 mm | 294.15 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +1 mm versus +2 mm | 63.95 | 0.723 | Not significant |
| +1 mm versus +3 mm | 100.45 | 0.603 | Not significant |
| +1 mm versus +4 mm | 172.55 | 0.001 | Highly significant |
| +2 mm versus +3 mm | 36.50 | 1.0 | Not significant |
| +2 mm versus +4 mm | 108.60 | <0.001 | Highly significant |
| +3 mm versus +4 mm | 72.10 | 1.0 | Not significant |
MI: Maximum intercuspation
Comparison of incisal edge-to-lower lip distance recorded by Chou et al.[18] and the present study
| Increase in VDO (mm) | Chou | Present study |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2.28±1.99 | 2.90±2.07 |
| 2 | 4.14±2.52 | 5.73±3.12 |
| 4 | 5.29±2.95 | 7.51±2.18 |
VDO: Vertical dimension at occlusion