Aim: To measure and compare the facial soft tissue thicknesses (FSTT) between skeletal class I and class II patients.
Materials and methods: The sample consisted of lateral cephalograms of 120 patients (60 females and 60 males) of 18–30 years. These were subdivided into groups I, II, and III (n = 40 each) consisting of individuals with skeletal class I, mandibular retrognathism-induced skeletal class II, and maxillary prognathism-induced skeletal class II, respectively. Selected digital cephalograms were imported into the Nemoceph software (Nemotec, Spain) and calibrated. The thickness of the facial soft tissue was assessed and compared at 10 anthropological landmarks.
Result: Significant differences between the study groups were noted with respect to the mean Gls-G, Sn-A, and St-U1 values. In addition, sexual dimorphism was also noted.
Conclusion: Given the significant variation in the FSTT among the study groups, it is vital that the clinician in addition to accounting for the skeletal malocclusion also considers the soft tissue dimensions while formulating the treatment protocol.
Clinical significance: The differences among different skeletal malocclusions may be taken into account in patients undergoing orthodontics or corrective jaw surgery, both during diagnosis and treatment planning.
Fink B, Neave N. The biology of facial beauty. Int J Cosmet Sci 2005;27(6):317–325. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2005.00286.x.
Sforza C, de Menezes M, Ferrario VF. Soft-and hard-tissue facial anthropometry in three dimensions: what's new. J Anthropl Sci 2013;91:159–184.
Jeelani W, Fida M, Shaikh A. Facial soft tissue thickness among various vertical facial patterns in adult Pakistani subjects. Forensic Sci Int 2015;257:517.e1–517.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.09.006.
Hamid S, Abuaffan AH. Facial soft tissue thickness in a sample of Sudanese adults with different occlusions. Forensic Sci Int 2016;266:209–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.05.018.
Ramesh G, Nagarajappa R, Sreedhar G, et al. Facial soft tissue thickness in forensic facial reconstruction: is it enough if norms set? J Forensic Res 2015;6(5):1. DOI: 10.4172/2157-7145.1000299.
Somaiah S, Khan MU, Muddaiah S, et al. Comparison of soft tissue chin thickness in adult patients with various mandibular divergence patterns in Kodava population. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2017;8(2):51. DOI: 10.4103/ijor.ijor_38_16.
Wirthlin JO, Shetye PR. Orthodontist's role in orthognathic surgery. Semin Plast Surg 2013;27(03):137–144. Thieme Medical Publishers.
Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(6):674–684. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70228-8.
Gill DS, Lloyd T, East C, et al. The facial soft tissue effects of orthognathic surgery. Facial Plast Surg 2017;33(5):519–525. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606334.
Baillie LJ, Muirhead JC, Blyth P, et al. Position effect on facial soft tissue depths: a sonographic investigation. J Forensic Sci 2016;6(Suppl 1):S60–S70. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12935.
Lodha A, Mehta M, Patel MN, et al. Facial soft tissue thickness database of Gujarati population for forensic craniofacial reconstruction. Egyptian J Forensic Sci 2016;6(2):126–134.
Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(3):239–253. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70234-9.
Sahni D, Singh G, Jit I, et al. Facial soft tissue thickness in northwest Indian adults. Forensic Science Int 2008;176(2-3):137–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.07.012.
Subramaniam S, Karthi M, Senthil Kumar KP, et al. Comparison of soft tissue chin prominence in various mandibular divergence patterns of Tamil Nadu population. J Indian Acad Dent Spec Res 2016;3(2):39–42. DOI: 10.4103/jiadsr.jiadsr_3_17.
Peacock ZS, Lee CC, Klein KP, et al. Orthognathic surgery in patients over 40 years of age: indications and special considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72(10):1995–2004. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.03.020.
Kamak H, Celikoglu M. Facial soft tissue thickness among skeletal malocclusions: is there a difference? Korean J Orthod 2012;42(1):23–31. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.1.23.
Arnett GW, Gunson MJ. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(3):290–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.006.
Uysal T, Yagci A, Basciftci FA, et al. Standards of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning in Turkish adults. Eur J Orthodontics 2009;31(4):449–456. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn123.
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. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.139.
Dumont ER. Mid-facial tissue depths of white children: an aid in facial feature reconstruction. J Forensic Sci 1986;31(4):1463–1469. DOI: 10.1520/JFS11926J.
Simpson E, Henneberg M. Variation in soft tissue thicknesses on the human face and their relation to craniometric dimensions. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;118(2):121–133. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa. 10073.
Wang J, Zhao X, Mi C, et al. The study on facial soft tissue thickness using Han population in Xinjiang. Forensic Science Int 2016;266:585.e1–585.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.032.
Utsuno H, Kageyama T, Uchida K, et al. Facial soft tissue thickness differences among three skeletal classes in Japanese population. Forensic Science Int 2014;236:175–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.040.