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/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The growth of the craniofacial skeleton takes place from the 3(rd) week of intra-uterine life until 18 years of age. During this period, the craniofacial complex is affected by extrinsic and intrinsic factors which guide or alter the pattern of growth. Asymmetry can be encountered due to these multifactorial effects or as the normal divergence of the hemifacial counterpart occurs. At present, an orthodontist plays a major role not only in diagnosing dental asymmetry but also facial asymmetry. However, an orthodontist's role in treating or camouflaging the asymmetry can be limited due to the severity. The aim of this research is to report a technique for facial three-dimensional (3D) analysis used to measure the progress of nonsurgical orthodontic treatment approach for a subject with maxillary asymmetry combined with mandibular angular asymmetry. The facial analysis was composed of five parts: Upper face asymmetry analysis, maxillary analysis, maxillary cant analysis, mandibular cant analysis, and mandibular asymmetry analysis which were applied using 3D software InVivoDental 5.2.3 (Anatomage Company, San Jose, CA, USA). The five components of the facial analysis were applied in the initial cone-beam computed tomography (T1) for diagnosis. Maxillary analysis, maxillary cant analysis, and mandibular cant analysis were applied to measure the progress of the orthodontics treatment (T2). Twenty-two linear measurements bilaterally and sixteen angular criteria were used to analyze the facial structures using different anthropometric landmarks. Only angular mandibular asymmetry was reported. However, the subject had maxillary alveolar ridge cant of 9.96°and dental maxillary cant was 2.95° in T1. The mandibular alveolar ridge cant was 7.41° and the mandibular dental cant was 8.39°. Highest decrease in the cant was reported maxillary alveolar ridge around 2.35° and in the mandibular alveolar ridge around 3.96° in T2. Facial 3D analysis is considered a useful adjunct in evaluating inter-arch biomechanics.

The use of three-dimensional imaging to evaluate the effect of conventional orthodontic approach in treating a subject with facial asymmetry