RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS

Hasan Camcı

doi:10.7126/cumudj.777128

EN

RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS

Abstract

Introduction Forehead inclination and aesthetics have received very limited attention, although forehead is critically important in obtaining total facial aesthetics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between frontal sinus fields, forehead morphology, and skeletal malocclusion. Materials and Methods A total of 224 extraoral lateral photographs and cephalometric radiographs from skeletal class I, class II and class III patients in the post-pubertal period were investigated. Extraoral photographs and cephalometric radiographs were superimposed for each patient before measurements. The photographs were evaluated in three groups: Group A: Skeletal Class I malocclusions (n = 85), Group B: Skeletal Class II malocclusions (n = 74), Group C: Skeletal Class III malocclusions (n = 65). All subjects from the three groups were classified according to the types of the foreheads, and then on the photographs, four different angle measurements (A1, A2, A3, A4) were performed. In addition, the frontal sinus (FS) fields were calculated using the RadiAnt Dicom Viewer (Beta version) on cephalometric and posterior-anterior radiographs. One-way ANOVA, Chi-square, and Student t tests were used for statistical evaluation. Results No significant relationships between the skeletal malocclusions and the forehead types were seen. In Group C, the FS fields and A2 angles were higher than in the other groups. No gender-related variations were detected for any measurements. Conclusion There was a limited correlation between malocclusions, frontal sinus, and forehead morphology. Gender was not an element that creates morphological differences in forehead aesthetics.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Bulunmamaktadır

Project Number

Bulunmamaktadır

References

1. Lee Y-J, Park J-T, Cha J-Y. Perioral soft tissue evaluation of skeletal Class II Division 1: A lateral cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;148(3):405-413. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.033
2. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1960;46(10):721-735. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7
3. Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1966;52(11):804-822. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(66)90250-8
4. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Hession TJ, Treder JE. Soft tissue profile changes from 5 to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;114(6):698-706. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70203-3
5. Torlakovic L, Færøvig E. Age-related changes of the soft tissue profile from the second to the fourth decades of life. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):50-57. doi:10.2319/042110-215.1
6. Lillie EM, Urban JE, Lynch SK, Weaver AA, Stitzel JD. Evaluation of Skull Cortical Thickness Changes With Age and Sex From Computed Tomography Scans. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31(2):299-307. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2613
7. Čechová M, Dupej J, Brůžek J, Bejdová Š, Horák M, Velemínská J. Sex estimation using external morphology of the frontal bone and frontal sinuses in a contemporary Czech population. Int J Legal Med. 2019;133(4):1285-1294. doi:10.1007/s00414-019-02063-8
8. Janson G, Mendes LM, Junqueira CHZ, Garib DG. Soft-tissue changes in Class II malocclusion patients treated with extractions: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(6):631-637. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv083

9. Kim B, Lee H-C, Kim S-H, Kim Y, Son W, Kim SS. Hard- and soft-tissue profiles of the midface region in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography multiplanar-reconstructed image analysis. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(3):143. doi:10.4041/kjod.2018.48.3.143
10. Lam K, Ho T, Yao WC. Sinocutaneous Fistula Formation After Forehead Recontouring Surgery for Transgender Patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):e274-e277. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003524
11. Wong JK. Forehead augmentation with alloplastic implants. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2010;18(1):71-77. doi:10.1016/j.fsc.2009.11.006
12. Maggio M Di. Forehead and Orbital Rim Remodeling. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2019;27(2):207-220. doi:10.1016/j.fsc.2019.01.007
13. Duque CS, Casiano RR. Surgical anatomy and embryology of the frontal sinus. In: The Frontal Sinus. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005:21-31. doi:10.1007/3-540-27607-6_3
14. Schaeffer JP. The genesis, development, and adult anatomy of the nasofrontal region in man. Am J Anat. 1916;20(1):125-146. doi:10.1002/aja.1000200105
15. Aydinlioǧlu A, Kavakli A, Erdem S. Absence of frontal sinus in Turkish individuals. Yonsei Med J. 2003;44(2):215-218. doi:10.3349/ymj.2003.44.2.215
16. Spaeth J, Krügelstein U, Schlöndorff G. The paranasal sinuses in CT-imaging: Development from birth to age 25. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;39(1):25-40. doi:10.1016/S0165-5876(96)01458-9
17. Christensen AM. Assessing the variation in individual frontal sinus outlines. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;127(3):291-295. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20116
18. Aslıer NGY, Zeybek G, Karabay N, et al. The Relationships Between Craniofacial Structure and Frontal Sinus Morphology: Evaluation With Conventional Anthropometry and CT-Based Volumetry. Ear, Nose Throat J. 2019. doi:10.1177/0145561319876927
19. Andrews WA. AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(4):662-669. doi:10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0662:AROTMC]2.0.CO;2
20. Hwang H-S, Kim W-S, McNamara JA. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(1):72-80. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0072:EDITST>2.0.CO;2
21. Guerrero-Apolo JD, Navarro-Pastor JB, Bulbena-Vilarrasa A, Gabarre-Mir J. The slant of the forehead as a craniofacial feature of impulsiveness. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2018;40(3):270-276. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2339
22. Theobald AH, Wong BKJ, Quick AN, Thomson WM. The impact of the popular media on cosmetic dentistry. N Z Dent J. 2006;102(3):58-63. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16986302. Accessed September 17, 2019.
23. Furnham A, Levitas J. Factors that motivate people to undergo cosmetic surgery. Can J Plast Surg. 2012;20(4):e47-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24294026. Accessed September 17, 2019.
24. Oh MJ, Kang SJ, Jeon SP, Sun H. Forehead Inclination in the Lateral Profile in Koreans. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(3):293-295. doi:10.5999/aps.2016.43.3.293
25. Baccetti T, Reyes BC, McNamara JA. Gender differences in Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(4):510-520. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[510:GDICIM]2.0.CO;2
26. Tuxen A, Bakke M, Pinholt EM. Comparative data from young men and women on masseter muscle fibres, function and facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol. 1999;44(6):509-517. doi:10.1016/S0003-9969(99)00008-4
27. Alvesalo L. Human sex chromosomes in oral and craniofacial growth. Arch Oral Biol. 2009;54:S18-S24. doi:10.1016/J.ARCHORALBIO.2008.06.004
28. Olsen JA, Inglehart MR. Malocclusions and perceptions of attractiveness, intelligence, and personality, and behavioral intentions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140(5):669-679. doi:10.1016/J.AJODO.2011.02.025
29. Urban JE, Weaver AA, Lillie EM, Maldjian JA, Whitlow CT, Stitzel JD. Evaluation of morphological changes in the adult skull with age and sex. J Anat. 2016;229(6):838-846. doi:10.1111/joa.12247
30. Lee S-Y, Lee J-W, Cha K-S, Jung D-H, Lee S-M. An Evaluative Study on Forehead Morphology of Individuals with Normal Occlusion and Position of Maxillary Incisor in Accordance to Forehead Morphology. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2013;29(3):236-248. doi:10.14368/jdras.2013.29.3.236
31. D’Onofrio L. Oral dysfunction as a cause of malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(S1):43-48. doi:10.1111/ocr.12277
32. Grippaudo C, Paolantonio EG, Antonini G, Saulle R, La Torre G, Deli R. Association between oral habits, mouth breathing and malocclusion. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016;36(5):386-394. doi:10.14639/0392-100X-770
33. Linder-Aronson S. Respiratory Function in Relation to Facial Morphology and the Dentition. Br J Orthod. 1979;6(2):59-71. doi:10.1179/bjo.6.2.59
34. Assis NIL, Seixas MF d. S, Mendes TÂDS, et al. Retrospective study of morphological and functional alterations in patients with long face syndrome diagnosis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:188. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.586
35. Cha K-S. Soft-tissue thickness of South Korean adults with normal facial profiles. Korean J Orthod. 2013;43(4):178. doi:10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.178
36. Hwang H-S, Park M-K, Lee W-J, Cho J-H, Kim B-K, Wilkinson CM. Facial Soft Tissue Thickness Database for Craniofacial Reconstruction in Korean Adults. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(6):1442-1447. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02192.x
37. Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod. 2012;42(1):23. doi:10.4041/kjod.2012.42.1.23
38. Hixon EH. The norm concept and cephalometrics. Am J Orthod. 1956;42(12):898-906. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(56)90190-7
39. Celebi AA, Tan E, Gelgor IE, Colak T, Ayyildiz E. Comparison of soft tissue cephalometric norms between Turkish and European-American adults. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:806203. doi:10.1155/2013/806203
40. Samizadeh S. The Ideals of Facial Beauty Among Chinese Aesthetic Practitioners: Results from a Large National Survey. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43(1):102-114. doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1241-8
41. Mehl C, Wolfart S, Vollrath O, Wenz H-J, Kern M. Perception of Dental Esthetics in Different Cultures. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(6):523-529. doi:10.11607/ijp.3908
42. Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod. 1969;55(2):109-123. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5
43. Bittner C, Pancherz H. Facial morphology and malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;97(4):308-315. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(90)70103-J
44. Adibelli ZH, Songu M, Adibelli H. Paranasal sinus development in children: A magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(1):30-35. doi:10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3552
45. Manolidis S, Hollier LH. Management of frontal sinus fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7 SUPPL. 2):32S-48S. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000260732.58496.1b
46. Levine HL CM. In: Clemente MP, ed. Surgical Anatomy of the Paranasal Sinus. In: Sinus Surgery: Endoscopic and Mi-Croscopic Approaches. ; 2003:1-55.
47. Fatu C, Puisoru M, Rotaru M, Truta AM. Morphometric evaluation of the frontal sinus in relation to age. Ann Anat. 2006;188(3):275-280. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2005.11.012
48. Çakur B, Sumbullu MA, Durna NB. Aplasia and agenesis of the frontal sinus in Turkish individuals: a retrospective study using dental volumetric tomography. Int J Med Sci. 2011;8(3):278-282. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.278
49. Pondé JM, Metzger P, Amaral G, Machado M, Prandini M. Anatomic variations of the frontal sinus. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2003;46(1):29-32. doi:10.1055/s-2003-37956
50. Koertvelyessy T. Relationships between the frontal sinus and climatic conditions: A skeletal approach to cold adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1972;37(2):161-172. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330370202

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hasan Camcı ^*
0000-0003-0824-4192
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 31, 2020

Submission Date

August 24, 2020

Acceptance Date

September 25, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 23 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.777128

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA53JW64RD

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Camcı, H. (2020). RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, 23(4), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.777128

AMA

1.Camcı H. RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2020;23(4):273-282. doi:10.7126/cumudj.777128

Chicago

Camcı, Hasan. 2020. “RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 23 (4): 273-82. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.777128.

EndNote

Camcı H (December 1, 2020) RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 23 4 273–282.

IEEE

[1]H. Camcı, “RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS”, Cumhuriyet Dent J, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 273–282, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.7126/cumudj.777128.

ISNAD

Camcı, Hasan. “RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 23/4 (December 1, 2020): 273-282. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.777128.

JAMA

1.Camcı H. RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2020;23:273–282.

MLA

Camcı, Hasan. “RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 273-82, doi:10.7126/cumudj.777128.

Vancouver

1.Hasan Camcı. RELATIONSHIP OF FOREHEAD AESTHETICS WITH FRONTAL SINUS SIZE AND SKELETAL MALOCCLUSIONS. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2020 Dec. 1;23(4):273-82. doi:10.7126/cumudj.777128