Profile changes following lower incisor repositioning: a comparison between patients with different growth pattern.

AIM: Individual growth changes might play a large role in the variability of treatment results for the soft-tissue profile. The aim of this study is to evaluate the real existence of the relationship between the repositioning of lower incisors, evaluated by Frankfort Mandibular Incisor Angle (FMIA), and the enhancement of profile, evaluated by the angle formed by its intersection with Frankfort plane (Z-angle). We finally compared this relationship in patients with different growth pattern. METHODS: A sample of 81 subjects all treated with Merrifield Directional Force System was divided in two group on the basis of INDEX value (ratio between posterior and anterior facial height): Group 1 (INDEX value ≤0.65, non-favorable growth pattern) and Group 2 (INDEX value >0.65, favorable growth pattern). Differences between post-treatment and pre-treatment values of FMIA and Z-angle were calculated for each group and was named respectively ∆ FMIA and ∆ Z-angle. A ratio between ∆ Z-angle and ∆ FMIA was also calculated. RESULTS: The results of this study show a statistically significant correlation between lower incisors uprighting and profile outcome. A statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was not found. CONCLUSION: These results underline the difficulty to quantify and separate the effects of growth and orthodontic treatment of growing patients in determining the final facial configuration.

Correlation between facial morphology and esthetics in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if there were correlations between anthropometric nasolabial measurements and subjective assessments of nasal esthetics in individuals with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 28 individuals with repaired CUCLP and 20 age- and gender-matched individuals without clefts. OUTCOME MEASURES: Nasolabial morphology was assessed using 2D and 3D measurements made on frontal photographs, lateral cephalometric radiographs, and plaster nose casts. A panel of orthodontists rated nasal esthetics from frontal, lateral, three-quarter, and basal view photographs and plaster nose casts using visual analog scales, and they also order ranked the nose casts. Based on the nasal esthetics ratings and rankings, two groups that had the best and the worst esthetics representing the extremes of nasolabial esthetics were statistically identified. Measurements were compared between the cleft and noncleft and the best and worst groups using t tests and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Differences in anthropometric measurements between the groups were identified. The columellar width and nose base and nasolabial angles significantly differed between the best and worst groups (p < .05). Differences in panel ratings of nasolabial esthetics between the best and worst groups were statistically detected using lateral and three-quarter view photographs (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although morphologic differences between the cleft and noncleft and between the best and worst groups were identified, the slight morphologic differences noted were not sufficient to explain the subjective esthetic evaluation by the panel.