Relationship of Nasolabial Angle with Maxillary Incisor Proclination and Upper Lip Thickness in North Indian Population

Overview

Journal Int J Clin Pediatr Dent

Specialty Pediatrics

Date 2023 Mar 3

PMID 36865728

Authors

Hemant Garg

Daizy Khundrakpam

Vaishali Saini

Rashmi Rukshana

Kailash Kaldhari

Jagjit Kaur

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship between nasolabial angle (NLA) with maxillary incisor proclination (U1-NA) and upper lip thickness (ULT).

Materials And Methods: Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 120 patients were taken, and NLA, U1-NA, and basic ULT measurements were obtained for each patient. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all the variables involved in the study. The correlation was found using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) test. < 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The mean values of NLA, upper incisor proclination, and ULT were found to be 91.38° ± 7.10°, 34.21° + 5.17°, and 15.38 ± 1.76 mm, respectively. r (r = -0.583) was found between NLA and upper incisor proclination and (r = -0.040) for NLA and ULT.

Conclusion: There is a statistically significant relationship between NLA and U1-NA.

How To Cite This Article: Garg H, Khundrakpam D, Saini V, Relationship of Nasolabial Angle with Maxillary Incisor Proclination and Upper Lip Thickness in North Indian Population. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(5):489-492.

Citing Articles

Cephalometric and Photographic Evaluation of the Nasolabial Angle in Orthodontically Treated Patients: An Observational Cohort Study.

Pop S, Bud E, Martha K, Muresan I, Janosi K, Dosa B Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(2.

PMID: 39857016 PMC: 11763396. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15020132.

Association of LSMx and LIMd Angles With Cephalometric Dental and Soft Tissue Parameters of Incisor Proclination and Lip Protrusion.

Amin E, Tariq A, Nawaz R, Tariq A, Gul B Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e67761.

PMID: 39328635 PMC: 11424233. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.67761.

References

Hershey H . Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients. Am J Orthod. 1972; 61(1):45-54. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(72)90175-3. View

Ackerman J, Proffit W, Sarver D . The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res. 1999; 2(2):49-52. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.1999.2.2.49. View

Kasai K . Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(6):674-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70228-8. View

Rains M, Nanda R . Soft-tissue changes associated with maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982; 81(6):481-8. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90427-4. View

ROBISON J, Rinchuse D, Zullo T . Relationship of skeletal pattern and nasal form. Am J Orthod. 1986; 89(6):499-506. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90008-4. View

Scheideman G, Bell W, Legan H, Finn R, Reisch J . Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78(4):404-20. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90021-4. View

Dua V, Gupta S, Singh C . Evaluation of the nasolabial angle in the Indian population. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011; 1(2):79-82. PMC: 3220091. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.68595. View

Fitzgerald J, NANDA R, Currier G . An evaluation of the nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102(4):328-34. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70048-F. View

Hunt N, Rudge S . Facial profile and orthognathic surgery. Br J Orthod. 1984; 11(3):126-36. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.11.3.126. View

10.

Owen 3rd A . Diagnostic block cephalometrics. Part 1. J Clin Orthod. 1984; 18(6):400-22. View

11.

Linjawi A . Age- and gender-related incisor changes in different vertical craniofacial relationships. J Orthod Sci. 2016; 5(4):132-137. PMC: 5084475. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.192116. View

12.

Finnoy J, Wisth P, Boe O . Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1987; 9(1):68-78. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/9.1.68. View

13.

Hwang H, Kim W, McNamara Jr J . A comparative study of two methods of quantifying the soft tissue profile. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70(3):200-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0200:ACSOTM>2.0.CO;2. View

14.

Hellak A, Kirsten B, Schauseil M, Davids R, Kater W, Korbmacher-Steiner H . Influence of maxillary advancement surgery on skeletal and soft-tissue changes in the nose - a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Head Face Med. 2015; 11:23. PMC: 4495703. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-015-0080-y. View

15.

Yogosawa F . Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60(3):199-206. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1990)060<0199:PSTPCC>2.0.CO;2. View

16.

Shamlan M, Aldrees A . Hard and soft tissue correlations in facial profiles: a canonical correlation study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015; 7:9-15. PMC: 4296878. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S73457. View

17.

Lo F, HUNTER W . Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(5):384-91. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90187-7. View

18.

Nandini S, Prashanth C, Somiah S, Reddy S . An evaluation of nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011; 12(3):152-7. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1026. View