Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ABSTRACT
Purpose. To establish the most important esthetic landmarks variation and its interrelation on young Romanian peoples.
Material and method. To achieve data it was used a photo camera with feature specifications: 7,2 Mpx sensor, 3x optical zoom, self lens and self flash. Also it was setup on Macro function and it was used a limited
1-2,4 optical magnification. From 109 only 106 subjects were used (64 females and 42 males) with ages
between 22 and 30 years. 3 cases were no passed because the photos were compromised. All photos are
the copies of original photos (no edit software was used). Every subject was taken 8 photos: 4 facial frontal
bite, frontal vertical inocclusion (relaxed), frontal smiling, lateral bite; 4 intraoral frontal bites, frontal relaxed,
canine bite right and left. The follow aesthetic landmarks were analyzed: Incisors middle line vs. median facial line; the central incisors visibility (relaxed position); vestibular incisor curve; the upper frontal teeth visibility (smiling); labial lateral space; cervical and occlusal embrasures visibility; gingival zenith. The data obtained was processed with Excels (MS Office 2003) functions.
Results and conclusions. Incisors middle line vs. median facial line revealed an asymmetry on right side
twice more on female cases rather males. The vestibular incisor curve analysis revealed an equal percents
of normal and reversed curve distribution on males rather females higher percent of normal curve. The upper frontal teeth visibility (smiling) in percents was normal, or higher than normal, on females group, rather
on males group with a lower visibility than normal.
Keywords: esthetic landmarks, incisors visibility, interincisiv line, median facial line
INTRODUCTION
The esthetic function of dento-maxillary system
always has been placed at the higher importance
level like masticatory and fonatory functions. The
Romanian literature reviews did not revealed significant information about young populations esthetic analysis.
The most important esthetic landmarks which
are often use by physicians to evaluate patients esthetic function are: median facial line a connection landmark between teeth and facial esthetic,
incisors middle line, central incisors visibility (relaxed position), vestibular incisor curve and the upper frontal teeth visibility (smiling position) a
PURPOSE
The aim of the study is to offer to physicians a
statistic based information about Romanian young
people esthetic landmarks variation.
It has been choose a descriptive statistical study.
All the dates can be use finally to guide the doctors
on esthetic treatment plans.
Adres de coresponden:
Dr. Andrei Macris, 168 tirbei Vod Str., Bl. 20B, sc. A, ap. 8, Sect. 1, Bucharest
E-mail: andrei.macris@gmail.com
22
23
RESULTS
24
25
CONCLUSIONS
DISCUSSIONS
There are differences between female group and
male group. Overall we have found both gropus
with a higher of 50% cases with normal, or close to
ideal, esthetic parametres. On female group there
are higher percents of cases with normal parametres rather male group.
For example on incisors middle line vs. median
facial line (sex distribution, for each sex), male
group present a slightly higher percent of overllaped situations than female group.
Also we found a convenient situation on the upper frontal teeth visibility (smiling) vs. lateral labial
space: ideal lateral space have an ideal situation in
REFERENCES
1. Goldstein R. E. Esthetics in dentistry, Second edition, B.C. Decker
Inc., Hamilton, 1998. p. 3-8, 17-8, 101-5; 152-4; 223-5; 279; 395-8.
2. Ahmad I. Geometric considerations in anterior dental aesthetics:
restorative principles, Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent, 1998;
10(7):813-22.
3. Davis N. C. Smile design, Dent Clin North Am, 2007; 51(2):299-318.
4. Wazzan K. A. The visible portion of anterior teeth at rest, J Contemp
Dent Pract, 2004;5(1):53-62.
5. Evian C. I., Karateew E. D., et al. Periodontal soft tissue
considerations for anterior esthetics, J Esthet Dent, 1997; 9(2):68-75.
6. Adams T. B. Optimal dental and facial esthetics in orthodontics a
multifaceted challenge, Tex Dent J, 2002; 119(10):1019-31.
7. Cardash H. S., Ormanier Z., et al. Observable deviation of the facial
and anteriortooth midlines, J Prosthet Dent, 2003; 89(3):282-5.
8. Gill D. S., Naini F. B., et al. Smile aesthetics, Dent Update, 2007;
34(3):152-4;157-8.
9. Goldstein R. E. Esthetics in dentistry, Second edition, B.C. Decker
Inc., Hamilton, 1998. p. 3-8; 17-8.
10. Ioni S., Petre Al. Ocluzia dentar, ed. a III-a, Ed. Didactic i
Pedagogic, Bucureti, 2003. p. 71-76.
11. Blitz N., Steel C., Willhite C. Diagnosis and treatment evaluation in
cosmetic dentistry, 2003. p. 8-9; 30-33; 46-47.
12. Ackerman M. B. Buccal smile corridors, Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop, 2005; 127(5):528-9.