Orbital Lateral Cantal Distance Can Predict the Cephalometric Characteristic of Mandible in Iranian Population.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
4
5
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
entrez:
3
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Orbitofacial anthropometrics have become an important tool used in reconstructive surgery. The authors attempt to evaluate the relation between orbital lateral canthal distance and the cephalometric characteristic of mandible in Iranian population.In a cross-sectional study, anthropometric parameters of face in 200 subjects (100 males and 100 females) with mean age of 34.39 ± 18.83 were evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography imaging.In this study, there was not a significant difference in the age of sex groups (P = 0.183). Also, there was no significant difference in the left and right mandible angle in different sex groups (P = 0.25, P = 0.124, respectively). There were significant differences in the anterior mandible distance, inferior mandible angle distance (P = 0.0001) and lateral cantus distance of sex groups (P = 0.0001). There was a significant correlation between lateral contuse distance and left mandible angle (r = 0.226, P = 0.001), right mandible angle (r = 0.283, P = 0.00), mandible angle (r = -0.266, P = 0.00), anterior mandible angle distance (r = 0.655, P = 0.00), and inferior mandible angle distance (r = 0.582, P = 0.00).Here, we conclude that orbital lateral canthal distance can predict the cephalometric characteristic of mandible in Iranian population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33935146
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007702
pii: 00001665-202112000-00100
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e716-e719Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Begue L, Bushman BJ, Zerhouni O, et al. ’Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder’: people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive. British J Psychol 2013; 104:225–234.
Bargh JA, Ferguson MJ. Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychol Bull 2000; 126:925–945.
Lipiec K, Ryniewicz WI, Groch M, et al. The evaluation of anthropometric measurements of young polish women's faces. The J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30:709–712.
Wexler A. Posttraumatic facial restoration: a philosophy of care. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20:12–14.
Al-Mahdi AH, Al-Hasnawi SN, Al-Jumaily HA. Changes in soft tissue measurements after mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27:e702–e707.
Naran S, Wes AM, Mazzaferro DM, et al. More than meets the eye: the effect of intercanthal distance on perception of beauty and personality. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29:40–44.
Standring S, Ellis H, Healy JC, Johnson D, Williams A. Grays Anatomy. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier. 39th ed. 2005:481–483
Breeland G Aktar A, Patel BC. Anatomy, Head and Neck, Mandible. USA: StatPearls Publishing. 2020
Chim H, Salgado CJ, Mardini S, et al. Reconstruction of mandibular defects. Semin Plast Surg 2010; 24:188–197.
Kumar MP, Lokanadham S. Sex determination & morphometric parameters of human mandible. Int J Res Med Sci 2013; 1:93–96.
Whitaker LA, LaRossa D, Randall P. Structural goals in craniofacial surgery. Cleft Palate J 1975; 12:23–32.
Jodeh DS, Curtis H, Cray JJ, et al. Anthropometric evaluation of periorbital region and facial projection using three-dimensional photogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29:2017–2020.
Prendergast P. Facial proportions. In: Erian A, Shiffman MA, eds. Advanced Surgical Facial Rejuvenation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012:15–22
Ghaffari R, Hosseinzade A, Zarabi H, Kazemi M. Mandibular dimensional changes with aging in three dimensional computed tomographic study in 21 to 50 year old men and women. J Dentomaxillofac Radiol Pathol Surg 2013;2:7–122
Wagner WF, Neal DC, Alpert B. Morbidity associated with extraoral open reduction of mandibular fractures. J Oral Surg 1979; 37:97–100.
James RB, Fredrickson C, Kent JN. Prospective study of mandibular fractures. J Oral Surg 1981; 39:275–281.
Ellis E 3rd. A prospective study of 3 treatment methods for isolated fractures of the mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68:2743–2754.
Pickrell BB, Serebrakian AT, Maricevich RS. Mandible fractures. Semin Plast Surg 2017; 31:100–107.
van Twisk PH, Tenhagen M, Gul A, et al. How accurate is the soft tissue prediction of Dolphin Imaging for orthognathic surgery? Int Orthodont 2019; 17:488–496.
Swennen GR, Schutyser F, Barth EL, et al. A new method of 3-D cephalometry. Part I: the anatomic cartesian 3-D reference system. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17:314–325.
Oladipo A, Syed A. The views of obstetricians in the south-west of England on the use of prostaglandins and syntocinon in VBAC. J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 28:177–182.
Oladipo GS, Okoh P, Hart J. Anthropometric study of ocular dimensions in adult jaws of Nigeria. I Res DJ Med Mead SC 2010; 5:121–124.
Oladipo GS, Olotu EJ, Guinireama IU. Anthropometric comparision of canthal indices between the Ijaw and Igbo tribes. Scientia Africana 2008; 7:141–144.
Akhlaghi M, Khalighi Z, Vasigh S, et al. Sex determination using mandibular anthropometric parameters in subadult Iranian samples. J Forensic Leg Med 2014; 22:150–153.
nik Tahere H, Majid S, Fateme M, et al. Predicting the size of unerupted canines and premolars of the maxillary and mandibular quadrants in an Iranian population. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007; 32:43–47.
E. G. Sex determination by discriminant functions, analysis of mandibular shape. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1996;16:208–217
Steyn M, Iscan MY. Sexual dimorphism in the crania and mandibles of South African whites. Forensic Sci Int 1998; 98:9–16.