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

TL;DR

This study examines how well soft tissue measurements reflect hard tissue structures in dental malocclusion, finding mixed reliability.

Contribution

The study evaluates the correlation between soft tissue and hard tissue parameters in different malocclusion classes using cephalometric analysis.

Findings

Soft tissue measurements show significant differences in Class I and II malocclusions but not consistently in Class III.

Hard tissue angles (LSMx and LIMd) are not always reliable indicators of soft tissue protrusion.

Soft tissue analysis alone may not accurately reflect underlying dental malocclusion.

Abstract

Background: Soft tissue analysis can be used to assess anatomical features but may or may not accurately correlate with underlying hard tissue morphology, leading to an incorrect perception of malocclusion.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the reliability of different soft tissue reference lines used to evaluate anteroposterior lip position and the position of incisors and malocclusion and compare it with those assessed via hard tissue angles (LSMx and LIMd) and determine if they are true indicators of underlying protrusion of incisors and malocclusion.

Method: A total of 120 pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were selected where patients were 18-30 years old, diagnosed as Skeletal Class I, II (Division 1 and 2), and III malocclusion. The measurements taken were SN to point A angle (SNA), SN to point B angle (SNB), angle between point A and point B (ANB), upper incisor to SN plane angle (UI-SN), upper incisor to palatal plane angle (UI-PP), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), Ricketts' E line, Sushner's S2 line, nasolabial (NL) angle, mentolabial (ML) angle, LSMx angle, and LIMd angle.

Results: In the Class I malocclusion group, when the upper lip was assessed, the distribution of UI-SN, UI-PP, E line to UL, S line to UL, NL angle, and LMax was significantly different statistically (p=0.000), though the assessment of lower variables in Class I malocclusion showed the distribution of IMPA, E line to UL, S line to UL, ML angle, and LMand angle has a statistically significant difference (p=0.007). In Class II Division 2 malocclusion, a significant difference was observed for the upper variables (p=0.000), whereas the distribution of lower values was the same across all the variables (p=0.0724). In the sample of Class III malocclusion, a significant correlation was found in the upper variables, while the distribution among lower variables did not show any significant difference (p=0.211).

Conclusion: This study indicates that the upper and lower soft tissue correlation with hard tissue variables is reliable for some variables but not throughout for all. Soft tissue analysis (under study) can be used to assess disproportion, but it fails to correlate to the underlying hard tissue morphology and does not explain the correct malocclusion. Further studies based on 3D diagnosis to formulate a close relationship are encouraged that can help assess soft and hard tissue patterns consistent with one another.

Figures