Soft Tissue Profiles of 3-5 Year Old Preschool Children

Objective: Identifying the characteristics of soft-tissue profiles in 3-5 year old children. Methods: Children that participated in the study were selected from the 6 major districts of Ankara. In the selected schools, 3-5 year old 1513 children with primary dentition were examined and profile photographs were obtained. Facial convexity angle (FCA) and Total facial convexity angle (TFCA) were measured from profile photographs. Results: The mean values for the total facial convexity (145.9º ±4.2) and facial convexity (165.3º ±4.5) angles were determined. FCA and TFCA were significantly influenced by primary second molar terminal plane relationship. Conclusion: Finding of this study may be used as clinical references for pediatric dental patients and also, the significant relationship between soft tissue profile and primary occlusion is important for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment of pediatric dental patients.

Soft Tissue Profile, Preschool Children, Primary Dentition

1. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod, 84: 1–28, 1983.

2. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 103: 299–312, 1993.

3. Incrapera AK, Kau CH, English JD, McGrory K, Sarver DM. Soft tissue images from cephalograms compared with those from a 3D surface acquisition system. Angle Orthod, 80: 58–64, 2010.

4. Saxby PJ, Freer TJ. Dentoskeletal determinants of soft tissue morphology. Angle Orthod, 55: 147–154, 1985.

5. Zhu NW, Senewiratne S, Pigott RW. Lip posture and mouth width in children with unilateral cleft lip. Br J Plast Surg, 47: 301–305, 1994.

6. Bearn DR, Sandy JR, Shaw WC. Photogrammetric assessment of the soft tissue profile in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 39: 597–603, 2002.

7. Dimaggio FR, Ciusa V, Sforza C, Ferrario VF. Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 132: 475–480, 2007.

8. Bittner C, Pancherz H. Facial morphology and malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 97: 308–315, 1990.

9. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Tartaglia G. Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 103: 327–337, 1993.

10. Fernandez-Riveiro P, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suarez-Quintanilla D, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Eur J Orthod, 25: 393–399, 2003.

11. Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod 45: 481–507, 1959.

12. Abu Alhaija ES, Qudeimat MA. Occlusion and tooth/arch dimensions in the primary dentition of preschool Jordanian children. Int J Paediatr Dent, 13: 230–239, 2003.

13. Facal-Garcia M, de N-G, Suarez-Quintanilla D. The diastemas in deciduous dentition: the relationship to the tooth size and the dental arches dimensions. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 26: 65–69, 2001.

14. Bishara SE, Hession TJ, Peterson LC. Longitudinal soft-tissue profile changes: a study of three analyses. Am J Orthod, 88: 209–223, 1985.

15. Park HS, Rhee SC, Kang SR, Lee JH. Harmonized profiloplasty using balanced angular profile analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 28: 89–97, 2004.

16. Banker CA, Berlocher WC, Mueller BH. Primary dental arch characteristics of Mexican-American children. ASDC J Dent Child, 51: 200–222, 1984.

17. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Orthodontic Diagnosis: The Development of a Problem List. in: Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 167–233, 2007.

18. Budai M, Farkas LG, Tompson B, Katic M, Forrest CR. Relation between anthropometric and cephalometric measurements and proportions of the face of healthy young white adult men and women. J Craniofac Surg, 14: 154–161, 2003.

19. Garner LD. Soft-tissue changes concurrent with orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod, 66: 367–377, 1974.

20. Moss JP, Linney AD, Grindrod SR, Arridge SR, Clifton JS. Tartaglia G. Three-dimensional visualization of the face and skull using computerized tomography and laser scanning techniques. Eur J Orthod, 9: 247–253, 1987.

21. Swennen GR, Mollemans W, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional treatment planning of orthognathic surgery in the era of virtual imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 67: 2080–2092, 2009.

22. Chaconas SJ, Bartroff JD. Prediction of normal soft tissue facial changes. Angle Orthod, 45: 12–25, 1975.

23. Pelton WJ, Elsasser WA. Studies of dentofacial morphology IV. Profile changes among 6829 white individuals according to age and sex. Angle Orthod, 25: 199–207, 1955.

24. Subtelny JD. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes. Angle Orthod, 31: 105–122, 1961.

25. Foley TF, Duncan PG. Soft tissue profile changes in late adolescent males. Angle Orthod, 67: 373–380, 1997.

26. Hashim HA, AlBarakati SF. Cephalometric soft tissue profile analysis between two different ethnic groups: a comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract, 4: 60–73, 2003.

27. Darwis WE, Messer LB, Thomas CD. Assessing growth and development of the facial profile. Pediatr Dent, 25: 103–108, 2003.

28. Fields HW, Vann WF, Jr. Prediction of dental and skeletal relationships from facial profiles in preschool children. Pediatr Dent, 1: 7–15, 1979.

29. Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Jr., Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 110: 431–438, 1996.

30. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Hession TJ Treder JE. Soft tissue profile changes from 5 to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 114: 698–706, 1998.