English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The study was designed to identify skeletal analyses that best correlate with the parameter used to assess facial soft tissue profile. This may result in a soft tissue oriented approach for the diagnosis of the underlying sagittal skeletal discrepancy, which may subsequently lead to the development of a treatment plan that may give better soft tissue outcome. Methodology: A sample of 198 subjects (99 males and 99 females; mean age = 23.6 ± 4.6 years) was uniformly divided into Class I, II and III sagittal groups on the basis of soft tissue angle of convexity. Various sagittal parameters including ANB angle, AB plane angle, Downs angle of convexity, Wits appraisal, Beta angle and W angle were assessed on pretreatment lateral cephalograms. Correlation between various skeletal analyses and the soft tissue angle of convexity was determined using Spearman’s correlation. Results: The ANB angle showed the highest correlation with the soft tissue angle of convexity (r = 0.907), whereas W angle showed the least correlation (r = 0.744). Amongst the sagittal groups, no significant correlation was present in Class I group. Downs angle of convexity showed a moderate positive correlation in Class II (r = 0.514) and Class III (r = 0.533) sagittal groups with the soft tissue parameter. Conclusion: ANB angle and Downs angle of convexity were found to be reliable skeletal indicators in assessing the facial soft tissue profile. Hence, the number of cephalometric analyses for evaluating the sagittal skeletal jaw discrepancy may be limited to fewer analyses of higher diagnostic performance, which are more reliably related to the overlying facial pattern.

Assessment of the Facial Profile: The Correlation between Various Cephalometric Analyses and the Soft Tissue Angle of Convexity