Network analysis of three-dimensional hard-soft tissue relationships in the lower 1/3 of the face: skeletal Class I-normodivergent malocclusion versus Class II-hyperdivergent malocclusion
Tianyi Wang,Kaichen Nie,Yi Fan,Gui Chen,Kaiyuan Xu,Bing Han,Yuru Pei,Guangying Song,Tianmin Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04752-2
2024-08-24
BMC Oral Health
Abstract:Background: The determining effect of facial hard tissues on soft tissue morphology in orthodontic patients has yet to be explained. The aim of this study was to clarify the hard-soft tissue relationships of the lower 1/3 of the face in skeletal Class II-hyperdivergent patients compared with those in Class I-normodivergent patients using network analysis. Methods: Fifty-two adult patients (42 females, 10 males; age, 26.58 ± 5.80 years) were divided into two groups: Group 1, 25 subjects, skeletal Class I normodivergent pattern with straight profile; Group 2, 27 subjects, skeletal Class II hyperdivergent pattern with convex profile. Pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography and three-dimensional facial scans were taken and superimposed, on which landmarks were identified manually, and their coordinate values were used for network analysis. Results: (1) In sagittal direction, Group 2 correlations were generally weaker than Group 1. In both the vertical and sagittal directions of Group 1, the most influential hard tissue landmarks to soft tissues were located between the level of cemento-enamel junction of upper teeth and root apex of lower teeth. In Group 2, the hard tissue landmarks with the greatest influence in vertical direction were distributed more forward and downward than in Group 1. (2) In Group 1, all the correlations for vertical-hard tissue to sagittal-soft tissue position and sagittal-hard tissue to vertical-soft tissue position were positive. However, Group 2 correlations between vertical-hard tissue and sagittal-soft tissue positions were mostly negative. Between sagittal-hard tissue and vertical-soft tissue positions, Group 2 correlations were negative for mandible, and were positive for maxilla and teeth. Conclusion: Compared with Class I normodivergent patients with straight profile, Class II hyperdivergent patients with convex profile had more variations in soft tissue morphology in sagittal direction. In vertical direction, the most relevant hard tissue landmarks on which soft tissue predictions should be based were distributed more forward and downward in Class II hyperdivergent patients with convex profile. Class II hyperdivergent pattern with convex profile was an imbalanced phenotype concerning sagittal and vertical positions of maxillofacial hard and soft tissues.