Mentolabial sulcus and malocclusion: Facial esthetics in ethnic Tamil population

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the soft-tissue parameter that is depth and angle of mentolabial sulcus and to correlate this parameter with type of malocclusion present in an ethnic Tamilian population. Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the depth and angle of the mentolabial sulcus, to determine the type of malocclusion, and to correlate the soft-tissue parameter and malocclusion. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in 260 university students (65 males and 95 females) between April and September 2018. Photographs of all the students were taken using a digital camera. Mentolabial sulcus depth and angles were measured from the lateral photographs using an angle instrument along with the molar and canine relation. The type of mentolabial sulcus was also taken into account. The data were analyzed using the SPSS software version 22. The comparison of sulcus between males and females was performed using two-sample t-test at 95% confidence interval. Results: The mean mentolabial sulcus angle in the Tamilian population was 117.18° ± 9.24° (males: 118.19° ± 12.28° and females: 116.19° ± 12.28°). There was no statistically significant difference of sulcus angle between males and females (P = 0.078). The sulcus was classified as deep, average, and shallow in males and females. In total students, the average was more predominant followed by deep and shallow. Conclusion: The mean mentolabial sulcus angle in the Tamilian population was 117.18° ± 9.24°, in males was 118.19° ± 12.28°, and in females was 116.19° ± 12.28°. The sulcus was classified as deep, average, and shallow. There was no statistically significant difference of sulcus angle between males and females. The average type of sulcus was more predominant in the Tamilian population.

[1]  F. Mcdonald,et al.  Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values , 2017, Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[2]  E. Lee,et al.  Aesthetic Alteration of the Chin , 2013, Seminars in Plastic Surgery.

[3]  A. Dhopatkar Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis , 2013 .

[4]  S. Albarakati,et al.  Orthognathic surgical norms for a sample of Saudi adults: Hard tissue measurements. , 2010, The Saudi dental journal.

[5]  W. Evans,et al.  Facial soft tissue: the alpha and omega of treatment planning in orthognathic surgery , 2009, BDJ.

[6]  F. Naini,et al.  Facial aesthetics: 1. Concepts and canons. , 2008, Dental update.

[7]  D. Garib,et al.  Facial profile evaluation in Japanese-Brazilian adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  S. Boutros,et al.  Chin surgery III: revelations. , 2003, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[9]  H. Rosen Aesthetic Refinements in Genioplasty: The Role of the Labiomental Fold , 1991, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  S. Wolfe Dentofacial Deformities. Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical Correction , 1987 .

[11]  R A Holdaway,et al.  A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. , 1983, American journal of orthodontics.

[12]  R A Holdaway,et al.  A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. , 1983, American journal of orthodontics.

[13]  C. Burstone,et al.  Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. , 1978, Journal of oral surgery.

[14]  L L Merrifield,et al.  The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. , 1966, American journal of orthodontics.