Page 23 - MDJ Volume 47 Number 2 ( Jul-Dec 2024)

Khan, et al.: Soft tissue analysis of the chin, length and thickness of the upper lip
gender proportion was not observed with increasing facial cephalometric X-rays in the field of orthodontics,
angles (P = 0.387) [Table 1]. assuming that the esthetics of the face is largely
determined by the outline of the soft tissue profile or
The median vertical angle, facial angle, length of the form. [11,12]
upper lip, thickness of the upper lip, thickness of soft
tissue chin, thickness of soft tissue chin and length of soft The facial angle (FH-NʹPogʹ) in the current study ranged
tissue chin were 32.50 (IQR = 27–40), 84 (IQR = 80–87), from 70 to 98° in hypodivergent, normodivergent and
19 (IQR = 17–21), 11 (IQR = 10–13), 10 (IQR = 9–11), 9 hyperdivergent pattern patients. The median facial angle
(IQR = 8–11) and 7 (IQR = 6–8), respectively [Table 2]. was maximum in normodivergent groups, which was 86
Three study groups were not significantly different based (82–87)°, followed by hypodivergent, 84.50 (82–88)°, and
on upper lip length (P = 0.187), upper lip thickness minimum in hyperdivergent, 81.50 (76.75–86)°. In a study
[13]
(P = 0.196), soft tissue chin thickness (P = 0.216) and by Stoner, it was shown that the subjects with a small
soft tissue chin length (P = 0.330). Based on the Kruskal– facial angle has a retrosive face, while subjects with large
Wallis test, the vertical angle (P < 0.001), facial angle facial angle have a protrusive face. Our current study also
(P = 0.002) and soft tissue thickness (Gn-Gnʹ) were found showed similar results i.e.; the hyperdivergent pattern
to be significantly different among three groups. [Table 2] group had a smaller facial angle, which means having a
retrusive face, and the hypodivergent pattern group had
Post hoc analysis for the vertical angle revealed that
the median was significantly different among all three larger facial angle having a protrusive face.
groups. Facial pattern and soft tissue chin thickness In our current study, the overall range of upper lip
(Gn-Gnʹ) were found to be significantly different between length (Sn-ULI) between hyperdivergent, hypodivergent
normodivergent and hyperdivergent pattern groups and normodivergent group patients was 14–26 mm.
(P = 0.009) and hypodivergent and hyperdivergent pattern Mean value of upper lip length (Sn-ULI) was
groups (P = 0.005). minimum in normodivergent (18.40 ± 2.47 mm), then in
hypodivergent (19.04 ± 2.40 mm), and in hyperdivergent
(20.04 ± 2.57 mm). The upper lip with less than normal
dIscussIon anatomic values or deficient ones should be regarded as a
Soft tissue evaluation has a vital role in treatment problem with the facial or soft tissue profile, which neither
planning, overall diagnosis and obtaining good and should be handled by trimming or reducing the maxilla
balanced facial appearance. The profile of soft tissue unnecessarily; this may contribute to a short and circular
has been investigated or analyzed mainly from lateral outline of the face. In the current study, the minimum
[9]

Table 1: Distribution of participants’ characteristics among three facial patterns
Participants’ features Hypodivergent Normodivergent Hyperdivergent P-value
Age; median (IQR) 18 (15–20.25) 17 (14.75–20) 19 (17–22.25) 0.062
Gender
Male; n (%) 18 (36) 13 (26) 19 (38) ǂ 0.387
Female; n (%) 32 (32) 37 (37) 31 (31)
ǂ Chi-square likely test is reported

Table 2: Comparison of soft tissue chin parameters among three facial patterns
Study variables Hypodivergent median (IQR) Normodivergent median (IQR) Hyperdivergent median (IQR) P-value
Vertical patterns
Vertical angle (SN-GoGn) 26 (24–27) 32.50 (32–34) 41 (39.75–44.25) ** <0.001
Facial-angle(FH-NʹPogʹ) 84.50 (82–88) 86 (82–87) 81.50 (76.75–86) ** 0.002
Upper lip length and thickness parameters
Upper lip length (Sn-ULI) # 19.04 ± 2.40 18.40 ± 2.47 20.04 ± 2.57 0.187
Upper lip thickness (ULIn-ULA) 12 (10–14) 11 (10–13) 11 (10–12.25) 0.196
Chin length and thickness parameters
Soft tissue chin thickness (Pog–Pogʹ) 11 (10–11) 10 (9–12) 10 (9–11) 0.216
Soft tissue chin thickness (Gn-Gnʹ) 10 (9–11) 9 (8–11) 8.50 (7–11) * 0.013
Soft tissue chin length (Me-Meʹ) 7 (6–8) 7 (6–8) 7 (5–8) 0.330
# variable is normally distributed and presented as mean ± standard deviation
* Significant at P < 0.05,
** Significant at P < 0.01

Malaysian Dental Journal ¦ Volume 47 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ July-December 2024 17