Evaluation of upper and lower components of nasolabial angle in different malocclusions- A cephalometric study Original Research
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction:
Nasolabial angle is composed of two components: a) upper and b) lower component. Various foreign authors have developed different methods for evaluating this but consistent and reproducible methods for Indian population are few. Therefore, this should be placed within acceptable limits by planning treatment procedures accordingly to get the best aesthetic profile result and patient satisfaction.
Aim of the study:
To evaluate upper and lower components of nasolabial angle in different malocclusions in Bhopal population.
Material and methods:
It is a retrospective study, of sample size 150 that comprised of 60 profile pictures of individuals who belonged to Bhopal, out of which 30 were selected as aesthetically pleasing. Their lateral cephalograms were taken and traced. The study also used 120 lateral cephalograms of different malocclusions. The recorded data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA Test.
Result:
Significant results with p value<0.001 were found for the nasolabial angle among ideal group, Class I bimaxillary protrusion, Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2, Class I crowding.
Conclusion:
Nasolabial angle is correlated with the type of malocclusion and the soft tissue variables also alter this angle.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Bhat Vinaya et al. A Survey to Evaluate The Nasolabial Angle (NLA) in Indian Population; Nitte University Journal of Health Science; (2017); 7(1):4-6.
Ashraf Ayesha et al. Correlation of Nasolabial Angle with Maxillary Incisor Inclination and Upper Lip Thickness; Pakistan Oral and Dental Journal; (2018); 38(3):317-319.
Naini Farhad B. et al. The aesthetic impact of upper lip inclination in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery; Eur J Orthod; (2015): 81-86.
Kommi, P.B., Venkatesan, R., & Gopinath, V. A Cephalometric Assessment of Ideal Nasolabial Angle Range for South Indian Population. J Int Oral Health :2016; 8(2):205-207.
Farkas, L.G. (1994) Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face. In Farkas L.G. (ed.), Anthropometry of the Head and Face. Raven Press, New York, 2nd Edn.
Mubassar Fida, Naseer Ahmad Chaudhry, Rehan Qamar. Upper lip strain in bimaxillary proclination. Pakistan Oral and Dental Journal. 2008; 28 (2): 207-210.
Nandini S, Prashanth CS, Somiah SK, Reddy SR. An evaluation of nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011;12(3):152-157.
Kandhasamy Kohilanet et al. Evaluation of the nasolabial angle of the Komrapalayam population; Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences; (2012); 4:313-315.
Dua Vinay et al. Evaluation of the nasolabial angle in the Indian population; (2010); 1(2): 79-82
Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):759-764
Orten, S.S, Hilger, P.A. (2002) Facial analysis of the rhinoplasty patient. In Papel I.D. et al. (eds.), Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Thieme, New York, 2nd Edn.
Papel I.D, Capone R.B. (2004) Facial proportions and esthetic ideals. In Behrbohm H., Tardy M.E. Jr (eds), Essentials of Septorhinoplasty. Thieme, New York.
Gayathri M., Arun A.V. Relationship between nasolabial angle and maxillary incisor proclination in South Indian population. Drug Invention; 2018(10):2829-2832.