References

Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol. 1994; 108:233-242
Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011; 366:(1571)1638-1659
Lindauer SJ. Asymmetries: diagnosis and treatment (editorial). Semin Orthod. 1998; 4
Sheats RD, McGorray SP, Musmar Q, Wheeler TT, King GJ. Prevalence of orthodontic asymmetries. Semin Orthod. 1998; 4:138-145
Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1997; 12:171-176
Ramirez-Yañez GO, Stewart A, Franken E, Campos K. Prevalence of mandibular asymmetries in growing patients. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 33:236-242
Gribel BF, Thiesen G, Borges T, Freitas MPM. Prevalence of mandibular asymmetry in skeletal Class I adult patients. J Research Dent. 2014; 2:189-197
Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG. Dental and facial asymmetries: a review. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64:89-98
Chia MS, Naini FB, Gill DS. The aetiology, diagnosis and management of mandibular asymmetry. Ortho Update. 2008; 1:44-52
Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Freitas M. Facial asymmetry: a current review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20:110-125
Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64:447-454
Sedentexct Guidelines. Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Evidence-based Guidelines. 2011. http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf (Accessed 1st August 2016)
Trpkova B, Prasad NG, Lam EW, Rabound D, Glover KE, Major PW. Assessment of facial asymmetries from posteroanterior cephalograms: validity of reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003; 123:512-520
Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T. Maxillary expansion in Class II correction with orthopedic cervical headgear. A posteroanterior cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:281-285
Cross D, McDonald JP. Effect of rapid maxillary expansion on skeletal, dental, and nasal structures: a postero-anterior cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22:519-528
Uysal T, Zafer S. Posterior cephalometric norms in Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127:324-332

Assessment of Facial Asymmetry in Orthognathic Patients

From Volume 12, Issue 1, January 2019 | Pages 29-31

Authors

Clara Gibson

BDentSc, MJDF RCS(Eng), MClin Dent, MOrth RCS(Eng)

Orthodontic Registrar, Department of Orthodontics, Eastman Dental Hospital, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD, UK

Articles by Clara Gibson

Abstract

Discrepancies between dental and facial midlines are not uncommon and these may have a dental or a skeletal cause. When planning orthognathic surgery, a decision must be made whether to accept or correct these. This paper presents a simple technique that uses graph paper to evaluate any midline discrepancies as an aid to pre-treatment discussion and explanation with the patient.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Accurate diagnosis of the clinical problem and complete patient understanding of the situation are imperative, both for informed consent and for a favourable treatment outcome. Tracing of a posterior-anterior cephalogram on graph paper can aid treatment planning and patient comprehension.

Article

Facial symmetry is long established to be a principal component of an aesthetically pleasing face.1 A symmetric face is perceived as ‘more beautiful’ by layperson observation.2 Perfect bilateral symmetry, however, is rare and the face often has a mild degree of asymmetry, not perceptible on normal everyday observation.3

Prevalence of facial asymmetry in orthodontic patients has been reported as 12%–37% in the US.4,5 This increased to 50% when assessed radiographically.6 A CBCT study by Gribel et al in 2014 demonstrated a similar prevalence rate of 44% of mandibular asymmetries in 250 Class I patients.7

Asymmetry may lie at the hard or soft tissue level and involve skeletal, dental, muscular or functional components.8 Both developmental and environmental influences may be implicated when assessing the aetiology. Chia et al outline four main causes:

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available