Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2013.29.3.236

An Evaluative Study on Forehead Morphology of Individuals with Normal Occlusion and Position of Maxillary Incisor in Accordance to Forehead Morphology  

Lee, Su-Yong (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
Jung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
Lee, Sang-Min (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.29, no.3, 2013 , pp. 236-248 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, 37 subjects with normal facial shape and normal occlusion are classified and reference value for such classification was investigated. Difference in position of maxillary incisor was studied according to the cl assification. Moreover, by investigating correlation between factors affecting forehead morphology and positio n of maxillary incisor, following results have been obtained. 1. Morphology of forehead can be classified as angular type, round type, straight type, and concave type. 2. There were no specific reference value for evaluation of forehead morphology but possibilities of evaluating forehead morphology using S value and forehead length (Tri-Gla) still remain. 3. There were no correlation between forehead morphology and position of maxillary incisor. 4. Forehead inclination and Andrew analysis show statistically significant negative correlation. That is, as forehead inclination increases, maxillary incisor is positioned posteriorly and this relationship can be shown as following equation, Andrew analysis = -0.39*Forehead inclination.
Keywords
Andrew's analysis; Esthetics; Forehead morphology; Maxillary incisor; Position;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Dorsey J, Korabik K. Social and psychological motivations for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1977:72;460.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Kilpelainen PV, Phillips C, Tulloch JF. Anterior tooth position and motivation for early treatment. Angle Orthod 1993:63;171-4.
3 McKiernan EX, McKiernan F, Jones ML. Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1992:7;187-98.
4 Andrews WA. AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. Angle Orthod 2008:78;662-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948:34;812-40.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Downs WB. The role of cephalometrics in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1952:38;162-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Downs WB. Variations in facial proportions. important factors in their management and prognoses. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1970:2;5-22.
8 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953:39;729-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 2012:29;8-29.
10 Tabbenor O. Essentials of orthognathic surgery, 2nd edition. Br Dent J 2011:210;495-6.
11 Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 1958:44;1-25.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967:53;262-84.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Vig R, Brundo G. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent 1978:39;502-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 McNamara Jr. JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984:86;449-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2010:5;229-34.
16 Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Journal of Orthodontics 1988:15;105-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971:60;111-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 2. conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971:60;505-17.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Kvam E, Krogstad O. Variability in tracings pf lateral head plates for diagnostic orthodontic purposes. A methodologic study. Acta Odontol Scan 2012:27;359-6.
20 Tourne LP, Bevis RL, Cavanaugh G. A validity test of cephalometric variables as a measure of clinical applicability in anteroposterior profile assessment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1993:8;95-112.
21 Cox NH, van der Linden FPGM. Facial harmony. Am J Orthod 1971:60;175-83.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Tulloch C, Phillips C, Dann C, 4th. Cephalometric measures as indicators of facial attractiveness. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1993:8;171-9.
23 Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN. The use of three-dimensional techniquesin facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995:1;94-104.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Hambleton RS. The orthodontic curtain. Angle Orthod 2012:33;294-8.
25 Hambleton RS. The soft-tissue covering of the skeletal face as related to orthodontic problems. Am J Orthod 1964:50;405-20.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966:52;804-22.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999:116;373-89.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA, Deutsch C, Munro IR. Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. Am J Orthod 1984:86;52-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. part I. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993:103;299-312.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 William Arnett G, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning - part II. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993:103;395-411.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Adrews LF. The six element of orofacial harmony Foundation for orthodontic education and research, 1999.
32 Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969:55;566-77.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Friede H. Normal development and growth of the human neurocranium and cranial base. Scand J Plast Surg Recontr Surg Hand Surg 2012:15;163-9.
34 Lieberman DE, Pearson OM, Mowbray KM. Basicranial influence on overall cranial shape. J Hum Evol 2000:38:291-315.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969:55:566-77.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Friede H. Normal development and growth of the human neurocranium and cranial base. Scand J Plast Surg Recontr Surg Hand Surg 2012:15:163-9.
37 Lieberman DE, Pearson OM, Mowbray KM. Basicranial influence on overall cranial shape. J Hum Evol 2000:38:291-315.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Lee SY, Cha KS. The study on ideal position of upper incisor based on head in normal occlusion. Dankook university. 2000.
39 Farkas LG. J Plastic and Reconstruction surgery 1985:75;509-1.   DOI
40 Proffit WR. et al, editor. Contemporay treatment of dentofacial deformity mosby press;2003.
41 Riedel RA. The relation of maxillary structures to cranium in malocclusion and in normal occlusion Angle Orthod 1952:141-145.
42 Shudy FF. Cant 0f the occlusal plane and axial inclinationof teeth, Angle Orthod 1963:33;69-82.
43 Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communications, Am. J. Orthod 1960:46;330-357.   DOI   ScienceOn