| Literature DB >> 32933221 |
Alexander D Vardimon1, Nir Shpack1, Atalia Wasserstein1, Marilena Skyllouriotou1, Morris Strauss1, Silvia Geron1, Noa Sadan1, Shifra Levartovsky2, Rachel Sarig1,3,4.
Abstract
Background: Upper lip appearance received major attention with the introduction of diverse treatment modalities, including lip augmentation, rhinoplasty surgery, and dental treatment designed to support the upper lip. Our objectives were to define the prevalence and characteristics of the upper lip horizontal line (ULHL), which is a dynamic line appearing during a smile, in relation to gender, malocclusions, aging, and facial morphology.Entities:
Keywords: aging; facial morphology; sexual dimorphism; smile; upper lip; wrinkle
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32933221 PMCID: PMC7559705 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186672
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1En-face view of two patients (a,b) with upper lip horizontal line (ULHL). (a1,b1): No presence of ULHL at lip together; (a2,b2): no presence of ULHL at rest; (a3,b3): full presence of ULHL at smile (see arrow). Note the flip of the upper lip during full smile.
Figure 2Cephalometric measurements used in the study: Sella–Nasion–A point angle (SNA) (a), Sella–Nasion–B point angle (SNB) (b), Upper incisors - Nasion- A point angle (U1 to NA) (c), incisor-maxilla height (d), sulcus depth (e) and upper lip height (f), vertical anterior upper proportions calculated by measured Nasion to anterior nasal spine (ANS) divided by Nasion-Menton (N-ANS/N-Me) (g) and vertical anterior lower proportions calculated by measured anterior nasal spine to Menton divided by Nasion-Menton (ANS-Me/N-Me) (h). Also marked in the figure: The Sella- Nasion line (SN line), the mandibular plane connecting point Gonion to Gnathion at the inferior border of the mandible (MP), Menton- the lowest point on mandibular symphysis (Me), the anterior nasal spine (ANS), Nasion- the most anterior point on frontonasal suture (N), and the H line, drawn tangent to the soft tissue chin and the upper lip.
Descriptive analysis of the study samples: the survey group (First stage) and the analyzed group (Second stage).
| Individuals Presenting with ULHL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Group | Prevalence | Age | ||||
| N | N | % | Mean | Std | ||
|
|
| 235 | 15 | 6.4 | 17.12 | 8.149 |
|
| 408 | 74 | 18.1 | 19.39 | 9.580 | |
|
| 643 | 89 | 14.0 | 18.60 | 9.190 | |
|
|
| 34 | 9 | 26.5 | 14.93 | 4.764 |
|
| 63 | 41 | 65.1 | 17.63 | 8.678 | |
|
| 97 | 50 | 51.5 | 16.68 | 7.623 | |
Figure 3Prevalence of the ULHL according to three age groups, based on the first group survey (n = 643). No significant difference was found between the three age groups.
Chi-square table presenting the prevalence of the ULHL and without it (no-ULHL), according to malocclusion. No significant difference was found in the prevalence of the ULHL between the different malocclusions.
| Malocclusion | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cl I | Cl II/1 | Cl II/2 | Cl III | |||
|
|
| 48 | 31 | 4 | 7 | 90 |
|
| 53.3% | 34.4% | 4.4% | 7.8% | 100.0% | |
|
|
| 224 | 234 | 36 | 59 | 553 |
|
| 40.5% | 42.3% | 6.5% | 10.7% | 100.0% | |
The prevalence of the ULHL and without it (no-ULHL) according to a gummy smile. Based on the Chi-square analysis, a significant difference (p = 0.004) was found in the prevalence of ULHL in the presence of a gummy smile.
| Gummy Smile | Non-Gummy Smile | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 25 | 65 | 90 |
|
| 27.8% | 72.2% | 100.0% | |
|
|
| 84 | 469 | 553 |
|
| 15.2% | 84.8% | 100.0% | |
|
|
| 109 | 534 | 643 |
|
| 17.0% | 83.0% | 100.0% | |
Cephalometric measurements of the study group with and without ULHL, T-test analysis was used to describe the differences between the two groups.
| Cephalometric Measurement | ULHL | No ULHL | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEAN | STD | MEAN | STD | Lower | Upper | ||
|
| 81.84 | 4.11 | 81.26 | 4.18 | NS | −1.09 | 2.26 |
|
| 78.14 | 3.51 | 78.65 | 3.69 | NS | −1.96 | 0.94 |
|
| 26.86 | 7.40 | 25.37 | 9.52 | NS | −1.94 | 4.91 |
|
| 33.95 | 5.61 | 33.51 | 7.01 | NS | −2.11 | 2.99 |
|
| 44.62 | 3.08 | 42.40 | 3.15 | 0.001 | 0.96 | 3.47 |
|
| 55.36 | 3.08 | 57.64 | 3.12 | >0.001 | −3.53 | −1.03 |
|
| 26.00 | 3.97 | 27.98 | 3.26 | 0.009 | −3.45 | −0.51 |
|
| 19.42 | 2.45 | 23.06 | 3.05 | >0.001 | −4.76 | −2.53 |
|
| 6.54 | 2.21 | 5.40 | 1.93 | 0.008 | 0.30 | 1.97 |
Stepwise linear logistic regression analysis to predict the ULHL presence.
| Model | 95% Confidence Interval for B | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Lower | Upper | |
|
| 0.535 | 0.057 | 0.107 |
|
| −0.394 | −0.128 | −0.057 |
|
| −0.213 | −0.393 | −0.054 |