The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Ackerman ◽  
William R. Proffit ◽  
David M. Sarver
2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110180
Author(s):  
Pavankumar R Singh ◽  
Anand S Ambekar ◽  
Suresh K Kangane

In orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, soft tissue profile assessment is of prime importance. Due to the emerging soft tissue paradigm, greater emphasis has been given to the clinical examination of soft tissue function and esthetics. Various cephalometric and photographic methods were introduced in the past to assess and measure profile angle and other facial angles. Our new device, that is, profilometer, helps to measure profile angle clinically.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Shashank Gaikwad ◽  
Sachin Doshi ◽  
Amol Mhatre ◽  
Arundhati Tandur ◽  
Natasha Khushalani

Abstract Since turn of the 20th century orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning has been based on the Angle paradigm that considers ideal dental occlusion ‘nature's intended ideal form’. The orthodontist's task is to seek balance between the patient's aesthetic demands, functional efficiency and structural harmony. The soft tissues largely determine the limitations of orthodontic treatment, from the perspectives of functions and stability, as well as aesthetics. Therefore orthodontist must plan treatment within the patient's limits of soft tissue adaptation and soft tissue contours. This is a case report showing a well finished case keeping in mind the emerging soft tissue paradigm in diagnosis and treatment planning.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Arif Celebi ◽  
Enes Tan ◽  
Ibrahim Erhan Gelgor ◽  
Tugba Colak ◽  
Erdem Ayyildiz

One of the most important components of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning is the evaluation of the patient’s soft tissue profile. The main purpose of this study was to develop soft-tissue cephalometric standards for Turkish men and women and compare them with the cephalometric standards of normal European-American white people. The sample included 96 Turkish adults (48 women, 48 men), aged 20 to 27 years. Turkish subjects have increased facial convexity associated with retruded mandible, more obtuse lower face-throat angle, increased nasolabial angle and upper lip protrusion, deeper mentolabial sulcus, and smaller interlabial gap compared with European-American white people. It is appropriate to consider these differences during routine diagnosis and treatment planning of a Turkish patient or an American patient of European ancestry. Turkish males reveal more obtuse mandibular prognathism and upper lip protrusion, and smaller nasolabial angle than females.


1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 645-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Dryland Vig, BDS ◽  
Edward Ellis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 78-84
Author(s):  
Hyeri Lee ◽  
Jennifer Pursley ◽  
Hsiao-Ming Lu ◽  
Judith Adams ◽  
Thomas DeLaney ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Omnia A. Elhiny ◽  
Mohammed Abou Elyazied ◽  
Ghada A. Salem

Abstract Background The choice between extraction and expansion treatment is an endless debate in orthodontics. Ethnic and secular variations showed that there was a change in  arch perimeter over the last 50 years. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between the arch perimeter and the intercanine and intermolar widths in normal occlusion. Also, to design regression equations for the prediction of the arch perimeter based on arch width, in a sample of the Egyptian population. The images of 340 cast pairs for 11 to 13-year-old patients were traced using TracerNet. Intercanine width, intermolar width and arch perimeter were measured, statistical analysis was performed and regression equations for both arches were formulated. Results There was a positive correlation between the lower arch AP, ICW and IMW and between the upper arch AP and ICW. Lower arch perimeter = 0.536 I33 + 71.642, lower arch perimeter = 0.828 l66 + 58.604 and upper arch perimeter = 1.988 U33 + 30.492 were the significant derived equations. Conclusions The formulation of regression equations offers a tool for the prediction of arch perimeter or arch width that can act as a guide in diagnosis and treatment planning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document