Prevalence of facial asymmetry in Tirupati population A

Prevalence Of Facial Asymmetry In Tirupati Population A-Free PDF

  • Date:07 Nov 2019
  • Views:85
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:8
  • Size:1.38 MB

Share Pdf : Prevalence Of Facial Asymmetry In Tirupati Population A

Download and Preview : Prevalence Of Facial Asymmetry In Tirupati Population A


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Prevalence Of Facial Asymmetry In Tirupati Population A


Transcription:

Reddy et al Prevalence of facial asymmetry, regions of craniofacial skeleton was approached Studies committee The study was planned and done over a. conducted by Profitt and Severt 3 4 assessing facial period of 3 months . asymmetries in orthodontic patients clinically found a. prevalence ranging from 12 to 37 in North Carolina The inclusion criteria were clinically acceptable facial. United States 23 in Belgium and 21 in Hong symmetry presence of full complement of teeth no. Kong Radiographic examinations reveal values higher history of pathology trauma surgical intervention or. than 50 5 orthodontic treatment and no congenital abnormalities. in the maxillofacial region , Mossey et al 6 performed a similar study to evaluate the. size and shape related craniofacial skeletal asymmetries The sample size was calculated using the. and concluded wider left side of the face and a shorter following formula E Z 2 n. vertical dimension on the right side Kowner in a classic. experiment on the perception of attractiveness based on Facial photographs were taken with a Canon Power. symmetry conducted in Japan concluded that limited Shot A 650 IS camera and by the same photographer . asymmetry may be simply more aesthetic regardless of Participants were made to stand and assume natural head. its function 7 Fong et al in a study conducted in Taiwan position so that their Frankfurt horizontal FH planes. concluded that 68 of the study population showed will be parallel to the floor The cephalograms were. chin deviation to the left side and 32 to the right taken in the posteroanterior projection . side 8 , The analysis for assessment of transverse frontal facial. In another study Anistoroaei et al concluded that facial asymmetry was done by using frontal asymmetry. asymmetry was present in 4 7 of patients they also analysis suggested by Grummons Figure 1 1 For. concluded that a significant correlation was evidenced subjective evaluation frontal photographs were assessed. between facial asymmetry and type of malocclusions by using composite photographs 2 3 . age and type of dentition 9 , Mid sagittal reference. While most of the studies have concluded that, no quantitative differences in different types of This is a vertical reference line According to Grummons .
measurements of face exists in relation to face 10 11 mid sagittal reference MSR closely follows visual plane. some studies such as the one conducted by Ercan et al formed by subnasale and the midpoint between the eyes. concluded that the number of significantly asymmetric and eyebrows and hence MSR was selected as the key. linear distances between the two halves of the face was reference line Figures 2 and 3 . greater in females than that in males 12 Cheng in his. review concluded the symmetry of the face is highly Horizontal planes. influenced by soft tissue landmarks 13 Four planes were drawn to show the degree of. parallelism and symmetry of the facial structures . The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the Three planes connected the medial aspects of the. prevalence of skeletal facial asymmetry using frontal zygomatic frontal sutures ZZ the centers of the. cephalograms and frontal photographs among the zygomatic arches ZA and the medial aspects of the. adults of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh hitherto assessing jugal processes J Another plane was drawn at menton. the correlation of skeletal facial asymmetry and soft parallel to the Z plane Figure 4 . tissue facial asymmetry as well as to assess the gender. differences in the prevalence of facial asymmetry . Table 1 Sample size and mean age group of the,MATERIALS AND METHODS sample. Total sample Age range Males Females, A total of 100 residents 50 males and 50 females 100 18 25 years 50 50. of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh in the age group of,18 25 years were selected for the study through. randomized sampling Tables 1 and 2 Before Table 2 Mean age group of the study groups. commencement of the study a written informed Total sample Sex Mean age SD. consent was taken from all the participants of the 50 Males 20 92 years 2 3 years. study Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical 50 Females 20 92 yesrs 1 9 years. December 2016 Vol 6 Supplement 3 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry S206. Reddy et al Prevalence of facial asymmetry, Mandibular morphology together and similarly right half of the face and its. mirror image were joined to form two facial composites . Two triangles right and left were formed by joining i e L L left composite and R R right composite . the AG Me and Co points on both sides representing Facedness of the sample or population refers to the side. the mandibular morphology The linear measurements with highest total prevalence Figure 7 . for all the three sides of the triangles were recorded. along with the measurements of the angles formed by. joining Co Go and Me points on both sides Figure 5 . RESULTS, The data were statistically collected and tabulated.
Linear asymmetry transverse in Microsoft excel The data was stastically. analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social. The vertical offset as well as the linear distance was. Sciences SPSS version 16 0 program statistical,measured from MSR to Co NC J Ag Go and Me. analysis package software Independent t test was,were measured The linear distance to MSR from. used to find the differences between different,the land marks Co Nc J Ag Go U L and Me was. measurements and the significance in the, calculated for paired structures the distance away from. measurements of the right and left side dimensions if. the midline was determined for both landmarks and, any The data was checked for the normal distribution.
the difference between the distances was calculated For. using t statistics and then the correlation coefficients. unpaired points the horizontal distance to the midline. between the various parameters were calculated using. will be determined Figure 6 , Pearson s correlation to determine which would. produce a higher value , Frontal photographs of the participants were taken and. each photograph is divided into left and right sides. and left half of the face and its mirror image are joined. Figure 2 Midsagital reference line,Figure 1 List of Land marks used in this study. a b, Figure 3 Alternate methods of constructing a Line from midpoint. of Z plane through ANS b Line from midpoint of Z plane through. Fr Fr line Figure 4 Horizontal plane, S207 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry December 2016 Vol 6 Supplement 3.
Reddy et al Prevalence of facial asymmetry, Linear asymmetries transverse widths observed at Z Co Za J Nc Ag and Go for. females , Table 3 shows the bilateral facial widths observed at. Z Co Za J Nc Ag Go distances as total widths The results showed statistically significant difference. right side and left side Table 4 shows total bilateral between the mean Z Co Za J Nc Ag and Go values. facial widths observed at Z Co Za J Nc Ag and of males and females P 0 01 The difference. Go for males Table 5 shows total bilateral facial between the right and left sides were statistically. Figure 5 Mandibular morphology Figure 6 Linear asymmetries. Figure 7 Composite photographs, December 2016 Vol 6 Supplement 3 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry S208. Reddy et al Prevalence of facial asymmetry, insignificant P 0 01 The test revealed that only from the right and left Z Co Za J Nc Ag and Go. Co distance was statistically significant P 0 01 to the MSR on both groups are shown in Table 6 No. The means and standard deviation of vertical distances significant difference was observed between males and. females P 0 01 , Table 3 Bilateral facial widths observed at Z Co .
Za J Nc Ag and Go distance as total width right Tables 6 8 shows bilateral widths of Co Go Go Me . side and left side Co Me and gonial Angle to assess the mandibular. Right Left t P morphology P 0 05 There was statistically. Mean SD Mean SD significant difference between the mean Co Me value. Z distance 47 257 2 25 47 129 2 166 0 144 0 676 and gonial angle of the right and left sides . Co distance 59 173 3 60 57 708 3 62 2 88 0 004 , Za distance 66 78 3 3 66 74 3 9 0 081 0 7 Table 9 shows the Bilateral widths and gonial angle to. Nc distance 16 41 1 52 16 31 1 51 0 412 0 68 assess the mandibular morphology in females The results. J distance 32 98 1 81 33 01 1 96 0 13 0 897 were statstiscally significant for the coronoid and menton. Ag distance 44 05 2 8 43 64 3 1 0 9 0 34 distance and the coronoid gonion and menton distance . Go distance 46 72 2 65 45 81 2 81 0 862 0 429, , P 0 01 highly significant. Table 10 shows mandibular offset at menton Menton. deviated to the left side in 55 2 6 1 4 mm and, Table 4 Bilateral facial widths observed at Z Co deviated to right in 3 1 6 0 28 mm In 58 males . Za J Nc Ag and Go for males there was deviation towards left 2 8 1 6 Whereas. Parameters Right Left t P towards the right in 2 1 5 mm In 52 females . Mean SD Mean SD deviation was towards left 2 4 1 02 and towards. Z 47 81 2 31 47 69 2 07 0 273 0 785 right 4 1 7 0 3 mm The difference between males. Co 59 77 3 08 57 025 3 6 2 625 0 010 and females is statistically insignificant P 0 01 . Za 68 26 3 3 68 24 3 1 0 031 0 975, Nc 16 68 1 38 16 49 1 36 0 691 0 491 Table 11 shows parallelism of facial structures Mean. J 33 27 1 8 33 65 1 9 0 74 0 461 angles formed by Z Za J Me and occlusal planes with. Ag 45 01 3 1 44 57 2 7 0 732 0 466, MSR shows that there was no statistically significant.
Go 47 63 3 1 46 57 2 7 0 862 0 429, , P 0 01, canting The difference between males and females was. statistically insignificant , Table 5 Bilateral facial widths observed at Z Co Tables 12 and 13 show the sidedness of the face by. Za J Nc Ag and Go for females subjective evaluation of composite photographs of 100. Parameters Right Left t P participants Out of a total of 100 participants it was. Mean SD Mean SD observed that 81 were right faced R R and 19 were. Z 46 69 2 2 46 55 2 07 0 331 0 741 left faced Thirty nine males were observed to be right. Co 56 24 3 9 54 27 3 0 2 110 0 035 faced R R and 11 were observed to be left faced L L . Za 65 26 2 7 65 18 2 7 0 0 1 000, Whereas in females 42 were observed as right. Nc 16 11 1 6 16 07 1 5 0 09 0 922,J 32 46 1 9 32 64 1 9 0 469 0 64. faced R R and 8 were observed to be left faced L L . Ag 43 07 2 6 42 81 2 9 0 463 0 644 Therefore in males and females facedness is towards. Go 45 06 2 6 45 16 2 9 0 463 0 64 the right and female faces were more right faced than. , P 0 01 highly significant males P 0 01 , Table 6 Vertical offset of Z Co Za J Nc Ag and Go.
Males Females t P, Total No Mean SD Total No Mean SD. Z distance 1 1 1, Co distance 34 3 18 1 62 32 2 28 1 47 2 18 0 032. Za distance 33 2 9 1 3 25 3 2 1 5 0 631 0 531, Nc distance 16 1 93 0 854 19 1 097 0 25 0 673 0 506. J distance 31 3 66 7 71 24 2 865 1 219 0 999 0 322. Ag distance 26 2 8 1 9 27 3 2 1 8 0 717 0 476,Go distance 26 2 8 1 926 27. S209 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry December 2016 Vol 6 Supplement 3. Reddy et al Prevalence of facial asymmetry, Table 7 Total bilateral widths and gonial angle to Table 12 Composite photographic.
assess the mandibular morphology analysis sideness of face. Right Left t P Total Right Faced Left Faced Faced Ness. Mean SD Mean SD 100 81 19 Right,Co Go 66 87 6 0 66 12 5 7 0 88 0 37. Go Me 58 32 5 7 58 21 4 0 0 2 0 81, Co Me 105 001 5 6 103 79 5 7 2 62 0 09 Table 13 Composite photographic analysis in. Gonial angle 123 67 4 5 121 99 5 9 3 557 0 003 males and females. , P 0 01 P 0 01 highly significant Sex R R L L, M 39 11. Table 8 Bilateral widths and gonial angle to F 42 8. assess the mandibular morphology in males, Right Left t P stressed upon by many researchers dating back from . Mean SD Mean SD Shah and Joshi 14 and Peck et al 15 . Co Go 67 42 4 6 66 12 7 8 0 47 0 504, Go Me 58 84 3 9 58 12 4 4 0 88 0 37 A posteronterior cephalometric radiographic study of.
Co Me 108 58 5 2 106 33 5 6 2 06 0 042 100 participants with pleasing symmetrical faces and. Co Go Me 122 98 4 7 119 48 6 4 3 1 0 003 normal occlusions was conducted with the objective. , P 0 01 P 0 01 highly significant, of evaluating the extent of facial asymmetry Frontal. photographs were obtained and studied for subjective. Table 9 Bilateral widths and gonial angle to evaluation of facial asymmetry seen in the selected. assess the mandibular morphology in females Tirupati population . Right Left t P, Mean SD Mean SD The frontal analysis suggested by Grummons was. Co Go 61 02 7 8 59 24 4 1 025 0 263 used to assess the patients for the transverse skeletal . Go Me 58 80 3 18 58 30 3 6 0 957 0 34 facial asymmetries as it provides clinically relevant. Co Me 103 24 5 08 101 22 4 54 2 113 0 037 information regarding specific locations and amounts. Co Go Me 124 36 4 3 121 34 5 11 3 62 0 002 of facial asymmetry and measures mandibular. , P 0 01 P 0 01 highly significant, morphology which can be seen to play a major role in. asymmetries , Table 10 Mandibular offset at menton. Me Left Right The results of the present study Table 1 showed that. No Mean SD No Mean SD the bilateral total widths . Department of Orthodontics Meghana Institute of Dental Sciences Nizamabad 1Department of Orthodontics Sri Balaji Dental College and Hospital Moinabad 3Department of Orthodontics Mallareddy Institute of Dental Sciences Hyderabad 4

Related Books