| Literature DB >> 32101535 |
Nancy Ajwa1, Fatimah Ahmed Alkhars2, Fasaiel Habeeb AlMubarak2, Huda Aldajani2, Noor Mahdi AlAli2, Amani Habib Alhanabbi2, Sukaina Abdulladel Alsulaiman2, Darshan Devang Divakar3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a debate over the influence of sex on facial soft tissue physiognomies. Therefore, the present study used teleradiographs to assess and compare the soft tissue physiognomies between males and females in a sample from Saudi Arabia who have various orthodontic malocclusions. MATERIAL AND METHODS We obtained 221 lateral cephalometric radiographs taken from orthodontic clinics of patients ages 16-26 years (114 males and 107 females) living in the central and eastern regions of Saudi Arabia. OnyxCeph3TM digital software was used to analyze the dentoskeletal classification of the sample as class I (n=84), class II division 1 (n=42), class II division 2 (n=33), and class III (n=62). Burstone analysis of 6 linear measurements for facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT) was used. We used descriptive analysis and the independent-samples t test using SPSS version 25 for Windows (Chicago, IL) with p<0.05 set as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS Male patients with a class I dento-skeletal relationship showed thicker FSTT; the most significant thickness was seen near the glabella, followed by the upper/lower lip and sub-labiomental sulcus areas. Male patients with class II division 1 showed a substantial difference in FSTT at subnasal, lower lip, and sub-labiomental sulcus areas. No significant difference in FSTT was found between males and females among class II division 2 and class III patients. CONCLUSIONS These observations of significant changes in facial structures of Saudis between males and females should be of great help for diagnosis of orthodontic cases in Saudi adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32101535 PMCID: PMC7060508 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.919771
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Descriptive statistics.
| Sex | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Total | |||||||||||||
| Mean | SD | Median | Max | Min | Mean | SD | Median | Max | Min | Mean | SD | Median | Max | Min | |
| NLA | 97.88 | 13.88 | 100.40 | 132.50 | 56.80 | 98.97 | 11.24 | 100.10 | 129.00 | 75.00 | 98.41 | 12.65 | 100.20 | 132.50 | 56.80 |
| G-G1 | 1.42 | 0.54 | 1.30 | 2.70 | 0.60 | 1.27 | 0.43 | 1.10 | 2.80 | 0.70 | 1.35 | 0.50 | 1.20 | 2.80 | 0.60 |
| A-SN | 4.48 | 1.67 | 4.10 | 10.80 | 1.10 | 3.49 | 0.97 | 3.10 | 6.50 | 2.10 | 4.00 | 1.46 | 3.60 | 10.80 | 1.10 |
| J-LS | 3.30 | 1.13 | 3.00 | 6.60 | 1.30 | 2.78 | 0.82 | 2.60 | 5.10 | 1.30 | 3.05 | 1.02 | 2.70 | 6.60 | 1.30 |
| I-LI | 3.82 | 1.31 | 3.50 | 7.00 | 0.70 | 3.24 | 0.91 | 2.90 | 5.80 | 2.00 | 3.54 | 1.17 | 3.20 | 7.00 | 0.70 |
| B-Sm | 3.37 | 1.23 | 3.00 | 8.60 | 1.70 | 2.81 | 0.88 | 2.50 | 6.10 | 1.40 | 3.10 | 1.11 | 2.80 | 8.60 | 1.40 |
| PG-PG1 | 3.19 | 1.13 | 2.80 | 6.50 | 1.20 | 2.81 | 0.88 | 2.60 | 6.40 | 1.40 | 3.00 | 1.03 | 2.80 | 6.50 | 1.20 |
Distribution of patients according to sex in the total population of patients with different dental and skeletal relationships.
| Sex | Region | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Eastern | Central | |||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Class I | 38 | 33.3 | 46 | 43.0 | 39 | 42.4 | 45 | 34.9 |
| Class II Division 1 | 14 | 12.3 | 28 | 26.2 | 18 | 19.6 | 24 | 18.6 |
| Class II Division 2 | 16 | 14.0 | 17 | 15.9 | 16 | 17.4 | 17 | 13.2 |
| Class III | 46 | 40.4 | 16 | 15.0 | 19 | 20.7 | 43 | 33.3 |
| Total | 114 | 100.0 | 107 | 100.0 | 92 | 100.0 | 129 | 100.0 |
Descriptive statistics of mean value and standard deviation (SD) calculated in relation to nasolabial angle (NLA).
| Variables | N | Mean | Std. deviation | df | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 114 | 97.88 | 13.87 | 214.45 | −0.643 | 0.521 |
| Female | 107 | 98.97 | 11.23 | ||||
| Region | Eastern | 92 | 98.50 | 13.00 | 219.00 | 0.095 | 0.925 |
| Central | 129 | 98.34 | 12.43 | ||||
Figure 1Skeletal (SNA, SNB, ANB), upper incisal inclination and six soft tissue cephalometric landmarks (Burstone) from top to bottom: G-G1; A-SN; J-LS; I-LI; B-Sm; PG-PG1.
Landmarks selected according to Burstone analysis [1].
| The glabella area (G-G1) | The linear distance between the G point (the most prominent point on the frontal bone) and the soft tissue, or analog point. |
| The subnasal area (A-SN) | The distance between point A (the most concave point of the anterior maxilla) and subnasale. |
| Upper lip thickness (J-LS) | The distance between the J point (the most labial point of the upper incisor) and surface of the upper lip, labrale superius. |
| Lower lip thickness (I-LI) | The distance between the I point (the most labial point of the lower incisor) and surface of the lower lip, labrale inferius. |
| Labiomental sulcus thickness (B-Sm) | The distance between the B point (the most concave point on mandibular symphysis) and labiomental sulcus. |
| Chin area (PG-PG1) | The distance between the PG point, the pogonion or the most prominent point of the chin, and soft tissue-analog point. |
Figure 2Mean facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT) profiles in males.
Figure 3Mean facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT) profiles in females.