16-21

1 2

*

) (
stahmasbi@dent.sbmu.ac.ir
:1


:2

88/2/2
88/3/13
88/3/26 .

107 :(2)5 :1388 113

:
16-21 .
: 59
30 29 17/1
4 . 10
Ricketts Holdaway Subtenly
.
t 0/05
SPSS12 .
: " "" no H-

"line " "E-line

" " " "H-line
) .(p value < 0/05 6 Holdaway 5
.
Ricketts Subtenly .
:
. Holdaway
.
: .

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

107

- .





].[1



[2]Ricketts
[3]Holdaway [4]Burstone .



.

] [5 ] [6][7-9
] [9-13] [14 15 ] [16
.

.
] [17
11-14


.
] [18
Tweed Steiner .


.

108

Al Taki ] [19 62

Holdaway .
Holdaway H
.






.

) (cross sectional
59
30 29 17/1
16-21 .
) (Multi-stage random sampling
4445 ) 2285 2160(
73


].[20

:
-1 CL I
-2 spacing crowding
crowding
-3

-4
-5
-6

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

.

) Ceph. plan Meca, D.R.
(1994. Type P.M. 2002, Helsinki, Finland
80 KV 12 MA .

trace .
Porion Orbital Subnasal


.
6 8
4 10
[2]Ricketts [3]Holdaway [21]Subtenly
) 2 1 .(3

.2
Soft-tissue facial angle -
H-angle -
Facial Convexity -
Total Faqcial Convexity angle -4

.3
Nose Prominence -
Upper Lip Sulcus -
Subnasal to H-Line -
Upper Lip thickness -
Lower Lip to H-Line -

Inferior Sulcus to H-Line -

Soft-tissue chin thickness -
no to H-Line -
Ls to E-Line -
Li to E-Line -

.1
SN -1
-2
Facial Plane -3
Facial Plane -4
H-Line -5
E-Line -6
Ls-FHP -7

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

109

t 0/05

. SPSS12 .
15 Method errors
45
ME Dahlberg
) (Me = E d 2 .

.

.
%95
Ricketts Holdaway
Subtenly . 1

4 .

2n
.1

91/5 3/1
17/9 2/1
4 1/6
6/4 3/3
15/8 2
17/2 4/9
0/5 1/4
6 1/7
13/5 1/9
5/1 4/3
3 2/5
0/7 2/6
159/2 7
130/4 5/6

P value
*0/024
0/0845
0/0825
0/092
**< 0/001
0/093
0/158
*0/012
0/799
*0/014
**0/008
0/126
0/142
0/587

93/4 3/2
17/7 2
4/1 1/3
5/2 2/2
13/3 2
15/3 3/5
1 1/1
4/9 1/5
13/3 2
7/8 3/2
4/7 1/9
1/8 2/4
161/5 5
131/2 4/5

Soft-tissue facial angle

Nose prominence
Upper Lip sulcus depth
Soft- tissue subnasal to H-line
Upper lip thickness
H angle
Lower lip to H-line
Inferior sulcus to H-line
Soft-tissue chin thickness
no to H-line
Upper Lip to E-line
Lower Lip to E-line
Facial convexity angle
Total facial convexity angle
* p value < 0/05
** p value < 0/01

.2 Holdaway

Holdaway

91 7
14-24
1-4
3-7
13-14
7-14
-1-2
10-12
-

110

91
3
5
10
0/5-1
9

91/5
**93/4
17/9
17/7
**4
**4/1
*6/4
5/2
**15/8
13/3
**17/2
**15/3
0/5
1
6
4/9
**13/5
**13/3
**1/5
*7/8

Soft-tissue facial angle

Nose prominence
Upper lip sulcus depth
Soft tissue subnasal to H-line
Upper lip Thickness
H angle
Lower lip to H-line
Inferior sulcus to H-line
Soft-tissue chin thickness
no to H-line
* p value < /
** p value < /

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

.3 Ricketts

3
*4/7
*0/7
1/8

Ricketts

2-3
1-2

Upper Lip to E-Line

Lower Lip to E-Line
* p value < 0/05

.4 Subtenly

Subtenly

161

161

161/5

159/2

133

137

*131/2

Facial convexity angle

**130/4
Total Facial convexity angle
* p value < /
** p value < /

.

.


.
5
) .(1 ) Soft-tissue
(facial angle 93/4
91/5

) .(p value = 0/024
[21]Subtenly Mauchamp ][22

. Basciftci ] [16

.

. Al-Taki
] [19 Basciftci

] [16
. Al-
Taki ] [19

.


.

) (p value < 0/001
E-Line
) .(p value = 0/008
Al-Taki ] [19 .
-
] [14
] [16
.
Inferior ) H
(sulcus to H-line ) 6(
) 4/9( ) (p value = 0/012
Al-Taki ] [19
Basciftci ] [16
.

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

111

Holdaway
6 5
Holdaway
) .(2 ] [16 2
Holdaway
.
(H angle) H
15/3 3/5 17/2 4/9
10
7-14 Holdaway .
Al-Taki ] [19 H

Holdaway .
] [18
Tweed Steiner.
H
17/7 2/88 ].[18
) 13/4(
Holdaway Al-Taki
] [19 Basciftci
] [16 .

.

Holdaway

Holdaway
.
E-Line
Ricketts

)
.(3 Hwang ] [14

112

E-line
- .

[21]Subtenly
Subtenly
) (4 Holdaway
.
][17

H-line E-line
.
:
(1 3-6
.
(2

(3
(4

:
. .
Holdaway .
Ricketts .
Subtenly .




.

5 2 1388

www.mui.ac.ir

References
1. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: Current Principles & Techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby;
2005. p. 3.
2. Ricketts RM. Planning Treatment on the Basis of the Facial Pattern and an Estimate of Its Growth. Angle Orthod
1957; 27(1): 14-37.
3. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J
Orthod 1983; 84(1): 1-28.
4. Burstone CJ. Integumental Contour And Extension Patterns. The Angle Orthodontist 1959; 29(2): 93-104.
5. Zylinski CG, Nanda RS, Kapila S. Analysis of soft tissue facial profile in white males. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1992; 101(6): 514-8..
6. Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Messersmith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-Americans. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106(2): 146-55.
7. Cooke MS, Wei SH. Cephalometric standards for the southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10(3): 264-72.
8. Wu J, Hagg U, Rabie AB. Chinese norms of McNamara's cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(1): 12-20.
9. Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 50(11): 1184-9.
10. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Comparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian
adults in antero-posterior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29(5): 493-9.
11. Alcalde RE, Jinno T, Orsini MG, Sasaki A, Sugiyama RM, Matsumura T. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in
Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118(1): 84-9.
12. Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Jr., Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and EuropeanAmerican adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110(4):
431-8.
13. Uesato G, Kinoshita Z, Kawamoto T, Koyama I, Nakanishi Y. Steiner cephalometric norms for Japanese and
Japanese-Americans. Am J Orthod 1978; 73(3): 321-7.
14. Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA, Jr .Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and EuropeanAmerican adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2002; 72(1): 72-80.
15. Park IC, Bowman D, Klapper L. A cephalometric study of Korean adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;
96(1): 54-9.
16. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Anatolian Turkish adults.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123(4): 395-400.
17. Haj Seyed Javadi H, Riaz Davudi P. Cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tissue in students of Tehran guidance
schools with normal occlusion. [Thesis]. Tehran: School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical
Sciences; 1988.
18. Hajighadimi M, Dougherty HL, Garakani F. Cephalometric evaluation of Iranian children and its comparison with
Tweed's and Steiner's standards. Am J Orthod 1981; 79(2): 192-7.
19. Taki AA, Oguz F, Abuhijleh E. Facial soft tissue values in Persian adults with normal occlusion and well-balanced
faces. Angle Orthod 2009; 79(3): 491-4.
20. Ramazan Zadeh BA, Shahabi N. Determination of hard tissue cephalometric standards in 16-21 year old Kermanian
students with normal occlusion. Journal of Dental School 1999; 17(1): 24-30.
21. Subtelny JD. A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation
to underlying skeletal structures. Am J Orthod 1959; 45(7): 481-507.
22. Mauchamp O, Sassouni V. Growth and prediction of the skeletal and soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod 1973; 64(1):
83-94.

113

1388 2 5

www.mui.ac.ir

Cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tisssue in 16-21 years old

students with normal occlusion in Kerman

Barat Ali Ramazanzadeh, Mohammad Hossein Karimi, Sotodeh Tahmasbi *

Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the present study was to cephalometric evaluation of facial soft tissue
facial profile for 16-21 years old students of Kerman with normal occlusion.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we utilized 59 lateral cephalometric
radiographs of 30 girls and 29 boys with mean age of 17.1 years and normal occlusion from Kerman
department of orthodontics. Four angular and 10 linear measurements from Holdaway, Ricketts and
Subtenly analyses were used to evaluate soft tissue profile. Mean values were utilized to compare
girls and boys with each other and with similar studies by t-test using SPSS 12 ( = 0.05).
Results: In comparison of girls with boys, soft tissue facial angle, no to H-line and upper lip to Eline
were significantly increased in Kermanian girls compared with Kermanian boys; while in boys, upper
lip thickness and inferior sulcus to H-line were larger (p<0.05).When comparing with Holdaway soft
tissue norms,6 values in boys and 5 values in girls were significantly different. In addition, position of
lips and facial convexity showed significant difference with Ricketts and Subtenly norms.
Conclusion: Kermanian boys differ from Kermanian girls in an increased lip thickness and more
retruded position of chin. In comparison with Holdaway norms, Kermanians have more convex face
and thicker chin.
Key words: Lateral cephalometry, facial soft tissue, normal occlusion.

Received: 22 Apr, 2009

Accepted: 16 Jun, 2009

Address: Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry and Dental Research
Center. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Email: stahmasbi@dent.sbmu.ac.ir

Journal of Isfahan Dental School 2009; 5 (2)

www.mui.ac.ir