Soft-tissue profile Fallacies of hard-tissue

standards in treatment planning

Young-Chel Park, D.D.S., M.S.D., Ph.D.,* and
Charles J. Burstone, D.D.S., M.S.**
Farmington, Conn.

The study was designed to test the efficacy of using a cephalometric dentoskeletal standard as a
clinical tool to produce predictable and desirable facial esthetics. Thirty adolescent patients were
randomly selected who, at the completion of treatment, had lower incisors positioned approximately
1.5 mm anterior to the A-pogonion plane. A normal sample of excellent faces (Indiana sample)
was used for comparison. Both profile measurements of hard and soft tissues were made. The most
striking observation was the large variation in the facial profiles even in cases successfully treated
to a cephalometric dentoskeletal standard. The variation (2 standard deviations) of lip protrusion from
the subnasale pogonion plane was 5 mm or a total of 10 mm. Similar variations were found in
other soft-tissue measurements. The results suggest that any given dentoskeletal standard has
questionable validity in producing either desirable esthetics or reproducible profiles following treatment.
(AM J ORTHOD DENTOFACORTHOP 90: 52-62, 1986.)

Key words: Soft tissue, facial profile, cephalometrics, esthetics, treatment planning

H i s t o r i c a l l y , orthodontics has included fa-
cial harmony as one of its important goals along with
occlusal excellence. E. H. Angle' suggested that if teeth
were placed in optimal occlusion, good facial harmony
would result. In more recent years, it has been sug-
gested that certain cephalometric standards relating
teeth to cranial or facial bones could ensure good facial
form if adhered to as a treatment goal. A large body
of research now exists that demonstrates that soft tis-
sues, which vary considerably in thickness, are a major
factor in determining the final facial profile of the pa-
tient. 57'1''14''5'29'3'35Nevertheless, recommendations for
various dentoskeletal standards as a goal for treatment
are still used that ignore soft-tissue thickness factors in
treatment planning. 24
Since dentoskeletal cephalometric standards for de-
termining incisor position are currently used, it was
decided to test the following hypothesis: an orthodontic
patient successfully treated to a cephalometric standard
would possess a desirable and predictable soft-tissue
profile. Many cephalometric guidelines have been sug-
gested (Steiner, Tweed). 2"4'8''4'38'4 For this study one
commonly used measurement was selected--that is, the
placement of the lower incisor to a position approxi-
From the University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine.
*Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut; 1984-85, Assistant
Professor, Yon-Sei University, Seoul, Korea.
**Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics, University of Connecticut
School of Dental Medicine.
mately 1 mm forward of the A-pogonion plane. It was
our intent to examine a population of treated orthodontic
cases in which this goal was achieved and to evaluate
facial harmony and, in particular, to look at the amount
of variation that might be present even with relatively
precise tooth positioning.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A sample of 30 adolescents, pretreatment and post-
treatment, were selected from the files of a group of
orthodontists who primarily used hard-tissue criteria in
their treatment planning. The patients selected were
successfully treated cases in which lower incisor po-
sitions after treatment were approximately 1.5 mm an-
terior to the A-pogonion plane. The sample included
all of the Angle classes with the preponderance of pa-
tients, exhibiting Class II Division 1 malocclusions
(Table I). A normal sample from Indiana University
comprising 32 adolescents with a mean age of 14.7
years was selected on the basis of good facial form and
used for comparison.
Radiographs were traced on standard acetate paper.
Fifty-one landmarks were digitized and analyzed by
means of the University of Connecticut computerized
cephalometric analysis (Fig. 1). The cephalometric
measurements are shown in Fig. 2. Abbreviations and
descriptions of the cephalometric measurements are
given in Table II.
All of the soft-tissue measurements of the posttreat-

52
Volume 90 Soft-tissue profile 53
Number 1

Table I. Sample characteristics

Mean (yr/mo) Range (yr/mo)

Age
Pretreatment
Posttreatment
11/ 3
15/0
4/9
2/3
j
,10
l,

Number %

Angle Class
Class I 5 16.7
Class II, Division 1
Class II, Division 2
Class III
20
4
1
66.7
13.3
3.3
/ 12
'13

Total 30 100.0
Sex
17
Male 12
---......
Female 18
~2o

ment group and the normal group were compared by

means of an independent t test to determine significance
at 0.05 and 0.01 levels. Descriptive statistics for the
samples were calculated from the observed value of
each measurement.
RESULTS
Group statistics
Descriptive statistics--including means, standard
deviations, standard errors, and ranges for both the
combined sample and Class II, Division 1 sample at
the pretreatment and posttreatment times--are given in
Tables III and IV.
A comparison of the measurements from the com-
bined posttreatment group with those of the normal
group showed significant differences in UL inclination,
UL (Pn-Pg'), LL (Pn-Pg'), maxillary sulcus, UL-IS,
Si-Stm, Me-Si, UL-IS, II-LL, LL (Sn-Pg'), Pn-Sn, and
mandibular sulcus at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (Table V).
UL (Sn-Pg'), G'-Sn-Pg', Pn-Sn-UL, LL inclination,
Sn-Stm, A-Sn, and Pg-Pg' did not show significant
differences.
Since the interpretation of Table V may be com-
plicated because of the varying malocclusion population
of the samples, we selected and analyzed only Class
II, Division 1 cases from the combined group. Com-
parison of the means of the Class II, Division 1 group
with those of the normal sample showed significant
differences in 14 variables, but did not show significant
differences in Pn-Sn, Sn-N'-Pn, Pn-Sn-UL, LL incli-
nation, Sn-Stm, or Pg-Pg' (Table VI).
A comparison of boys with girls showed significant
differences in UL (Sn-Pg'), LL (Sn-Pg'), G'-Sn-Pg',
Pn-Sn-UL, LL inclination, UL (Pn-Pg'), LL (Pn-Pg'),
Sn-Stm, IS-UL, and II-LL at 0.05 and 0.01 levels
):
Fig. 1. Hard- and soft-tissue landmarks.
(Table VII). It was interesting to note that even the
means of the treated sample differed from those of the
normal or good face population. More significant, clin-
ically, was the wide variation of the integumental facial
profiles among the treated cases.
Table VIII delineates this variation using two mea-
sures of variation--(1) two standard deviations and (2)
the ranges of key soft-tissue measurements in the com-
bined posttreatment group. For example, upper and
lower lip protrusion varied more than 10 mm at the
95% confidence level. Even at one standard deviation,
the variation was more than 5 m m - - t h a t is, 32% of all
cases would vary more than this amount. Other vari-
ations also showed very large variances.
Individual cases
It is useful to observe the influence of soft-tissue
morphology on the final facial form on individual pa-
tients. Since the significance of soft-tissue variation in
the diagnosis and treatment of malocclusions can some-
times be missed by looking at a statistical study alone,
it was considered desirable to select seven individual
patients for description. It should be remembered that
all of these patients were treated to approximately the
same horizontal position of the lower incisor to the
A-pogonion plane.
Seven posttreatment cephalometric radiographs
were selected that showed typical dentoskeletal rela-
54 Park and Burstone A m . J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
July 1986

FH)

I! 13

! 15
I,,....~--4LL

~
"
pgf

(UP) Q /

Fig. 2. A-D, Cephalometric measurements.

tionships yet interesting deviations on the soft-tissue
profiles (Figs. 3-9).
Cases A and B show obvious differences in the
amount of lip protrusion. The protrusion of both the
upper and lower lips in Case B is more than 9 mm
greater than Case A (Table IX). The reason for the
greater lip procumbency is found in the greater thick-
nesses of the upper and lower lips, which are more than
10 mm greater in Case B. This is somewhat mitigated
by slightly greater Sn and Pg' thicknesses (Figs.
3 and 4).
Normally, the thicknesses of the upper lip and lower
lip are approximately the same and a line connecting
soft-tissue pogonion and the lower lip will intersect the
upper lip. In Case B, a line between the soft-tissue chin
and the lower lip projects anterior to the upper lip. This
is caused by the large difference between lower lip
thickness and soft-tissue chin thickness. Compare this
Volume 90 Soft-tissue profile 55
Number 1

Table II. Soft-tissue measurements*

1. UL (SN-Pg') Upper lip procumbency to Sn-Pg'

plane
CASE A
2. LL (Sn-Pg') Lower lip procumbency to Sn-Pg'
plane
3. G'-Sn-Pg' Angle of soft-tissue convexity
4. Pn-Sn (FH) Nose base length parallel to Frankfort
horizontal
5. Sn-N'-Pn Angle of nasal convexity
6. Pn-Sn-UL Nasolabial angle
7. UL incl Upper lip inclination to Frankfort hor-
izontal
8. LL incl Lower lip inclination to Frankfort
horizontal
9. UL (Pn-Pg')** Upper lip procumbency to esthetic
plane
10. LL (Pn-Pg')** Lower lip procumbency to esthetic
plane
11. Si-LL Absolute length of mandibular sulcus
12. Sn-UL Absolute length of maxillary sulcus
13. SN-Stm (PFH) Upper lip length perpendicular to
Frankfort horizontal
14. UL-IS Incision stomium distance
15. Si-Stm (PFH) Lower lip length perpendicular to
Frankfort horizontal
16. Me-Si (PFH) Height of chin button perpendicular to
Frankfort horizontal
17. A-Sn (FH) Upper lip thickness parallel to Frank-
Fig. 3. Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case
fort horizontal
A (girl, 13.7 years).
18. UL (FH) Upper lip thickness at vermilion bor-
der parallel to Frankfort horizontal
19. LL (FH) Lower lip thickness at vermilion bor-
associated with the large soft-tissue variation at sub-
der parallel to Frankfort horizontal
20. Pg-Pg' Soft-tissue chin button thickness par- nasale (thinner by 2 mm) and particularly at pogonion
allel to Frankfort horizontal (thicker by 5 mm) in Case D. Thus, it can be seen that
soft-tissue variation not only affects the amount of lip
*Refer to Fig. 2. protrusion, but also the overall convexity or concavity
**Ricketts esthetic plane.
of the face.
Cases E, F, and G offer a contrast in a number of
soft-tissue measurements (Table IX) (Figs. 7-9). The
finding with Case E in which the opposite can be ob- nasolabial angles vary among the cases more than 28
served. with the largest nasolabial angle observed in Case E.
Case C has relatively more lip protrusion than Case Case F demonstrates a prominent nose, approximately
D (Figs. 5 and 6). The reason for this differential is 4 mm greater than that in Case E. There are varying
not found primarily in the lips, since upper and lower amounts of lip protrusion with Case E showing the least
lip thicknesses are approximately the same (Table IX). and Case G exhibiting the greatest. The upper lip on
The most significant soft-tissue variation is found in Case F is 3.5 mm thinner than the lower lip. Typically,
the soft-tissue thickness at pogonion, which is 5 mm upper and lower lip thicknesses are within 1 mm of
greater in Case D. Of course, if either subnasale or each other. The vertical position of anterior nasal
pogonion is positioned forward, the effect is one of spine to subnasale lies at a different vertical level
reducing lip protrusion. comparing the illustrated cases, pointing to the fal-
The hard-tissue angle of convexity (N-A-Pg) dif- lacy in the use of ANS for vertical skeletal height eval-
fers 4.5 between Cases C and D. On the other hand, uation.
if one compares the soft-tissue angles of convexity On the average the soft-tissue thicknesses at sub-
(G'-Sn-Pg'), there is a difference of 22 between the nasale and pogonion differ by approximately 4 mm with
two cases. Why is the soft-tissue convexity so much the subnasale dimension being the greatest. It should
greater than that of the hard tissue? This difference is be noted that in Case G these thicknesses are almost
56 Park and Burstone Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
July 1986

Table III. Characteristics of pretreatment and posttreatment samples

Total sample
(N = 30) Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum

Overbite
Pretreatment 4.1 mm 2.86 0.52 - 8.0 8.0
Posttreatment 2.7 mm 1.21 0.22 0.5 4.9
Overjet
Pretreatment 5.2 mm 3.46 0.63 0.0 13.0
Posttreatment 1.8 mm 0.79 0.14 0.5 3.5
1 to A-Pg
Pretreatment 7.1 mm 3.35 0.61 0.0 13.0
Posttreatment 4.1 mm 1.20 0.22 1.0 6.1
i to A-Pg
Pretreatment 1.0 mm 2.05 0.37 - 3.7 4.2
Posttreatment 1.5 mm 1.00 0.18 - 0.9 2.8

Table IV. Characteristics of pretreatment and posttreatment Class II, Division 1 samples

Class H, Division 1
(N = 20) Mean SD SE Minimum Maximum

Overbite
Pretreatment 4.0 mm 3.20 0.71 - 8.0 7.1
Posttreatment 3.0 mm 1.24 0.27 1.0 4.9
Overjet
Pretreatment 6.6 mm 3.20 0.71 1.0 13.0
Posttreatment 2.0 mm 0.97 0.17 0.5 3.5
_1to A-Pg
Pretreatment 8.6 mm 2.58 0.57 3.0 13.0
Posttreatment 4.4 mm 1.11 0.24 2.9 6.1
] to A-Pg
Pretreatment 1.2 mm 2.23 0.50 - 3.7 4.2
Posttreatrnent 1.7 mm 0.94 0.21 - 0.1 3.0

identical, The effect of this discrepancy is to increase
the procumbency of the upper lip.
Case F shows differential thicknesses between Sn
and Pg' of 1 m m with the normal closer to 4 mm. A
thinner subnasale and/or a thicker chin in any combi-
nation leads to a more concave soft-tissue profile than
would be suggested by the hard-tissue angle of con-
vexity. Hence, in this patient the relatively greater soft-
tissue chin produces a profile less convex than might
be assumed.
Fig. 10 (Case H) shows a composite tracing before
and after treatment. It demonstrates the so-called
"orthodontic look" that is sometimes produced when
treatment is based on dentoskeletal standards. The facial
appearance was fairly good before treatment. After
treatment the lips are retruded and a large nasolabial
angle is present. Since lips were in a relatively normal
position to the Sn-Pg plane at the onset, incisor retrac-
tion should have been avoided. Facial esthetics was
further worsened by considerable growth of the nose
(Table X).
DISCUSSION
If a dentoskeletal cephalometric standard is used to
determine the position of the incisors, a large variation
in lip protrusion and other soft-tissue measurements can
be observed. This is not too surprising since patients
exhibit large variations in soft-tissue thicknesses. Ref-
erences are found in the literature that show a corre-
lation between the anteroposterior position of the in-
cisors and the amount that the lips will drop back.7'l 1,19,26
Erroneously, these studies are misinterpreted to suggest
that hard-tissue guides are useful. Although the changes
in position of the lips are correlated with the antero-
posterior movement of the teeth, this correlation an-
swers the question of change in lip p o s i t i o n - - n o t final
Volume 90 Soft-tissue profile 57
Number 1

T a b l e V. I n d e p e n d e n t t test o f the means b e t w e e n normal group and c o m b i n e d posttreatment group

Mean Mean SD
difference
Normal Posttreatment (Posttreatment- Normal Posttreatment
Variable group group Normal) group group t value

UL (Sn-Pg') mm 2.8 3.4 0.6 1.95 2.78 -0.9889 NS

LL (Sn-Pg') mm 1.8 2.8 1.0 1.52 2.64 - 1.8422"
G'-Sn-Pg ' 12.1 14.6 2.5 5.28 7.22 - 1.5632 NS
Pn-Sn (FH) mm 15.7 16.8 1.1 1.89 2.98 - 1.7471"
Sn-N'-Pn 25.0 24.8 - 0.2 2.38 2.99 0.2923 NS
Pn-Sn-UL 116.7 119.0 3.0 7.67 8.77 - 0.1042 NS
UL incl 92.5 103.6 11.1 7.89 8.25 - 5.0867"*
LL incl 40.1 44.6 4.5 9.61 13.21 - 1.5408 NS
UL (Pn-Pg') mm -4.8 -2.9 - 1.9 1.78 3.96 - 2.4627**
LL (Pn-Pg') mm -3.8 - 1.1 - 2.7 2.63 3.63 - 3.3694**
Mandibular sulcus mm - 4.9 - 5.7 0.8 1.52 1.35 2.1855"
Maxillary sulcus mm - 1.8 - 2.3 0.5 0.61 0.83 2.7148"*
Sn-Stm (PFH) mm 20.0 20.1 0.1 2.53 3.12 -0.1390 NS
UL-IS mm 2.6 3.9 1.3 0.89 1.69 - 3.8237**
Si-Stm (PFH) mm 16.5 18.3 1.8 1.28 2.36 - 3.7653**
Me-Si (PFH) mm 29.4 34.2 4.8 3.63 4.19 - 4.8297**
A-Sn (FH) mm 16.0 16.4 0.4 1.73 2.08 -0.8252 NS
IS-UL (FH) mm 12.6 14.8 2.2 2.13 3.42 - 3.0611"*
II-LL (FH) mm 13.4 15.2 1.8 2.21 2.42 - 3.0610"*
Pg-Pg' (FH) mm 12.2 12.9 0.7 2.38 1.85 - 1.2869 NS

*P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. NS, Not significant.

(FH) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.
(PFH) Refers to perpendicular to Frankfort horizontal plane.

lip position. E v e n change in lip position is highly vari-
able, particularly in the a m o u n t that the upper lip will
fall back during retraction. Consideration o f the vari-
ations in soft-tissue thicknesses that are o b s e r v e d in
individual patients cannot be ignored if predictable fa-
cial results are to be achieved.
W h e n treatment is based on a dentoskeletal stan-
dard, one might expect that on the average the soft-
tissue profile o f the face and particularly lip protrusion
m i g h t be typical. O n e interesting aspect o f the present
study was that the m e a n o f integumental profiles varied
significantly f r o m that o f the normal sample. There are
a n u m b e r o f possible explanations for these d i f f e r e n c e s .
First, m a l o c c l u s i o n s do not represent normal dentoskel-
etal soft-tissue patterns at the onset, S o m e of the dif-
ferences m a y be treatment-related, such as the increase
in vertical dimensions seen in the distance b e t w e e n the
inferior mandibular sulcus and menton, or the amount
of incisor s h o w i n g b e l o w the l i p - - b o t h of which w e r e
increased in the treatment group.
In previous studies, differences in soft-tissue mea-
surements b e t w e e n males and females h a v e not been
demonstrated. In the treated sample, differences were
noted. Girls tended to h a v e less lip protrusion. A pos-
sible explanation for this m a y be found in the significant
difference b e t w e e n the c o n v e x i t y o f the faces b e t w e e n
boys and girls. The faces o f the girls in the treated
sample were less c o n v e x and hence the differences in
lip protrusion m a y be related to an overall sampling
difference in the nature o f the malocclusions treated.
The m o s t impressive finding in the study was the
large amount o f variation in the position of the lips
w h e n a c e p h a l o m e t r i c dentoskeletal standard was used.
In this study, the standard used was the positioning o f
the l o w e r incisor close to the A - p o g o n i o n plane. It
w o u l d be expected that other dentoskeletal standards or
systems w o u l d present similar problems. If we were to
consider only two standard deviations that w o u l d rep-
resent 95% of a universe o f m a l o c c l u s i o n s , lip protru-
sion w o u l d h a v e varied m o r e than + 5 m m f r o m the
mean. Stated m o r e succinctly, m o r e than 10 m m o f
variation was found in the positioning o f the lips us-
ing a cephalometric standard that was successfully
achieved. The total variation in upper lip inclination
was 34; l o w e r lip inclination was 52 . The total vari-
ation o f the esthetic plane o f the upper and l o w e r lips
was b e t w e e n 14 m m and 16 m m . Furthermore, it should
be r e m e m b e r e d that 5% o f the m a l o c c l u s i o n population
treated by cephalometric standards should be expected
to vary even m o r e than this amount. Clearly, if the
 58 Park a n d B u r s t o n e Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
July 1986

Table VI. Independent t test of the means between normal group and posttreatment Class II, Division 1
group
Mean Mean SD
difference
Class H, (Class H Class H,
Normal Division 1 Division 1- Normal Division 1
Variable group group Normal) group group t value

U L (Sn-Pg') rnm 2.8 4.1 1.3 1.95 2.66 - 2.0927*

LL (Sn-Pg') rnm 1.8 3.3 1.5 1.52 2.75 -2.5359**
G ' - S n - P g ' 12.1 17.5 5.4 5.28 5.62 - 3.5071"*
Pn-Sn (FH) mm 15.7 16.4 0.7 1.89 3.05 - 1.1265 NS
Sn-N'-Pn 25.0 24.6 - 0.4 2.38 11.01 0 . 1 8 9 3 NS
Pn-Sn-UL 116.7 119.3 2.6 7.67 9.79 - 1 . 1 0 1 2 NS
U L incl 92.5 105.1 12.6 8.89 8.82 -5.0109"*
L L incl 40.1 41.2 1.1 9.61 13.20 - 0 . 3 4 7 2 NS
U L (Pn-Pg ) m m -4.8 -1.4 3.4 1.78 3.30 -4.8284**
L L (Pn-Pg ) m m - 3.8 - 0.1 3.7 2.63 3.53 -4.2744**
M a n d i b u l a r sulcus rnm - 4.9 - 5.7 - 0.8 1.52 1.45 1.9962"
Maxillary sulcus m m - 1.8 - 2.6 - 0.8 0.61 0.77 4.5340**
Sn-Stm (PFH) m m 20.0 21.0 1.0 2.53 2.91 - 1.3479 NS
UL-IS m m 2.6 3.6 1.0 0.89 1.94 -2.7081"*
Si-Stm (PFH) turn 16.5 18.2 1.7 1.28 2.31 -3.4990**
Me-Si (PFH) m m 29.4 34.7 5.3 3.63 4.51 -4.6807"*.
A - S n (FH) m m 16.0 18.0 2.0 1.73 4.75 -2.2269*
IS-UL (FH) mm 12.6 15.9 3.3 2.13 3.40 -4.3259**
II-LL ( F H ) m m 13.4 15.6 2.2 2.21 2.80 -3.2778**
P g - P g ' ( F H ) rnm 12.2 13.2 1.0 2.38 1.93 - 1.5804 NS

*P < 0.05. **P < 0 . 0 1 . NS, Not significant.

( F H ) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.
(PFH) Refers to perpendicular to Frankfort horizontal plane.

Table VII. Independent t test of the combined posttreatment means between adolescent male and female
groups
Mean Mean SD
difference
Variable Male Female (Male-Female) Male Female t value

UL (Sn-Pg') mm 5.3 2.2 2.14 2.15 2.46 3.5958"*

LL (Sn-Pg') mm 4.6 1.6 2.95 2.37 2.21 3.4806**
G ' - S n - P g ' 18.9 11.7 7.16 5.63 6.84 3.0056**
Pn-Sn ( F H ) m m 16.5 17.1 - 0.55 2.39 3.37 - 0 . 4 8 8 1 NS
Sn-N'-Pn 24.1 25.3 - 1.18 2.67 3.18 - 1.0589 NS
Pn-Sn-UL 115.7 121.3 - 5.60 10.00 7.44 - 1.7599*
U L incl 105.9 102.1 3.81 7.27 8.71 1.2506 NS
L L incl 37.8 49.3 - 11.50 11.87 12.36 -2.5355**
UL (Pn-Pg') mm - 0.3 - 4.1 - 3.81 2.59 4.01 2.8973**
L L ( P n - P g ' ) rnm 1.2 - 2.8 - 3.99 3.03 3.13 3.4714"*
M a n d i b u l a r sulcus - 5.9 - 5.5 0.39 1.14 1.48 - 0 . 7 6 6 2 NS
Maxillary sulcus m m -2.5 -2.2 0.29 0.89 0.80 - 0 . 9 2 1 0 NS
Sn-Stm (PFH) m m 22.0 18.8 3.20 2.96 2.58 3.1347**
UL-IS m m 3.7 4.0 -0.28 1.32 1.93 - 0 . 4 3 2 9 NS
Si-Stm (PFH) rnm 18.5 18.1 0.40 1.87 2.67 0 . 4 5 7 7 NS
Me-Si (PFH) m m 35.5 33.4 2.12 4.44 3.91 1.3731 NS
A-Sn (FH) mm 17.0 16.0 0.95 2.25 1.93 1.2440 NS
I S - U L ( F H ) rnm 16.7 13.5 3.18 2.96 3.11 2.7831"*
II-LL ( F H ) m m 16.7 14.2 2.46 2.52 1.82 3.1110"*
Pg-Pg' (FH) mm 12.6 13.0 -0.42 1.79 1.92 - 0 . 6 0 3 5 NS

*P < 0.05. **P < 0 . 0 1 . NS, Not significant.

( F H ) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.
(PFH) Refers to perpendicular to Frankfort horizontal plane.
Volume 90 Soft-tissue profile 59
Number 1

CASE B
CASE

Fig. 6. Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case

Fig. 4. Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case D (girl, 15.0 years).
B (boy, 14.2 years).

CASE E

CASE C

Fig. 5. Posttreatment latera! cephalometric radiograph of Case Fig. 7, Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case
C (girl, 14,8 years). E (girl, 16.5 years).
60 Park and Burstone Am. J. Orthod.Dentofac.Orthop.
Ju/y 1986

CASE H
7-25-77
...... 8- 12-80
CASE F

".. ~ I f l~ I ~

................. .~..****
...-'"

Fig. 8. Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case

Fig. 10. Case H, Superimpositioning of lateral cephalometric
F (girl, 14.4 years).
radiographs of girl taken before (10.9 years) and after (14.3
years) treatment.

Table VIII. Two standard deviations (2 SD) and

CASE G
ranges of soft-tissue measurements related to
lips in combined posttreatment group
Variable 12 SD [ Range
UL (Sn-Pg') mm 5.56 - 1.2to 9.8
LL (Sn-Pg') mm 5.28 -2.0to 9.9
UL incl 16.50 86.3 to 123.0
LL incl 26.42 21.5 to 71.9
Pn-Sn-UL 17.54 103.9 to 139.4
UL (Pn-Pg') mm 7.92 - 11.5 to 5.9
LL (Pn-Pg') mm 7,26 - 7.2 to 8.6
IS-UL (FH) rnm 6.84 8.6to 23.0
II-LL (FH) mm 4.84 ll.3to 21.4
A-Sn (FH) mm 4.16 13.4to 18.2
UL-IS mm 3.38 2.2to 8.1
/
(FH) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.

clinician wishes to produce a given type of profile, a

Fig. 9, Posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph of Case
G (girl, 15.9 years).
cephalometric standard based on hard tissues alone will
not produce the desired results. Furthermore, there is
some question if a desired result will be reached even
on the average.
Since an important goal in treatment is to produce
Volume 90 Soft-tissue profile 61
Number1

Table IX. Posttreatment measurement of Case A (girl, 13.7 years), Case B (boy, 14.2 years), Case C (girl,
14.8 years), Case D (girl, 15.0 years), Case E (girl, 16.5 years), Case F (girl, 14.4 years), and Case G
(girl, 15.9 years)
Variable I CasealCaseB CaseC CaseD CaseEICaseF [ CaseG
UL (Sn-Pg') m m 0.4 9.8 1,8 -0.2 - 1.2 0.0 7.4
LL (Sn-Pg') m m 0.5 9.9 2.6 - 0.1 - 2.0 - 0.2 5.9
A-Sn (FH) mrn 16.4 17.6 16.6 14.6 19.5 13.4 18.2
Pg-Pg' (FH) m m 10.3 11.6 9.6 14.6 15.4 12.3 13.4
(A-Sn)-(Pg-Pg') m m 6.1 6.0 7.0 0.0 4.1 1.1 4.8
IS-UL (FH) m m 9.9 23.0 13.8 12.3 12.3 8.6 18.9
II-LL (FH) nun 11.3 21.4 14.8 15.5 12,4 12.1 17.1
Pn-Sn (FH) m m 14.8 19.6 14.4 15.6 12.6 17.4 13.0
UL-IS m m 5.6 4.9 2.9 3.6 8. l 3.7 3.8
Pn-Sn-UL 122.7 103,9 125.2 124.5 139.4 128.5 111.0
N-A-Pg - 12.3 14.1 3.0 - 1.5 6,8 2.2 9.2
G'-Sn-Pg ' - 2.0 28.3 16.7 - 0.5 18.1 6.2 18.3

(FH) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.

a desirable facial profile that includes lip protrusion (the Table X. Pretreatment (10.9 years) and
parameter that the orthodontist can alter the most), other posttreatment (14.3 years) soft-tissue
approaches are required. It is not the intent of this article measurements of an adolescent female (Case H)
to describe these methods in detail. Burstone 7,4~ has
Variable . Pretreatment Posttreatment
suggested two approaches. The first is to measure the
variation in soft-tissue thickness of the lips and to es- UL (Sn-Pg') mrn 2.0 0.6
timate the change in this thickness during retraction of LL (Sn-Pg') m m 0.7 -0.7
the teeth. This information is used to modify the po- G'-Sn-Pg ' 15.6 10.3
Pn-Sn (FH) m m 18.3 20.4
sition of the incisors from a dentoskeletal average. The
Sn-N-Pn 27.6 25.8
second approach is to use a.tracing of the original head Pn-Sn-UL 121.1 123.7
film. The lower and upper lips are uprighted to their UL incl 97.8 97.7
desired positions and the incisors are then placed in LL incl 55.9 64.9
contact with the lingual surfaces of the new lip position. UL (Pn-Pg') m m -4.7 -8.5
LL (Pn-Pg') m m -3.3 -6.4
Both methods require an understanding of the relation-
Mandibular sulcus m m - 4.1 - 3.8
ship between retraction of teeth and changes in soft- Maxillary sulcus m m - 1.5 - 1.4
tissue thickness. The uprighting of the lower lip in Sn-Strn (PFH) m m 19.0 15.3
relationship to change of incisor position is much more UL-IS m m 3.8 5.1
predictable than that of the upper lip since almost a SI-Strn (PFH) m m 16.7 17.9
Me-Si (PFH) mrn 26.8 33.0
one-to-one relationship exists. If the orthodontist care-
A-Sn (FH) m m 15.0 13.8
fully observes the face of patients before treatment, he IS-UL (FH) m m 10.5 11.2
is less apt to make disastrous decisions. He should II-LL (FH) m m 11.2 11.9
observe and preferably measure the amount of lip pro- Pg-Pg (FH) m m 13,2 13.2
trusion and other soft-tissue characteristics. Using 1 to A-pg m m 2.6 1.1

a hard tissue standard alone encourages the orthodon-
tist to ignore important information that he can ob-
serve during the time of the clinical examination or
from photographs, even without cephalometric mea-
surements.
As might have been expected, this study showed a
large variation in nose length both in the normal and
untreated samples. Lip protrusion to the esthetic plane
is much more variable than a plane that lies closer to
the face itself (that is, subnasale-pogonion). The sub-
(FH) Refers to parallel to Frankfort horizontal plane.
(PFH) Refers to perpendicular to Frankfort horizontal plane.
nasale-pogonion plane is considered a more desirable
plane to evaluate lip protrusion; not only does it dem-
onstrate less variation, but it is less influenced by
c h a n g e s in growth in comparison to the esthetic
plane.7.12,15
The main emphasis in this article has been on vari-
62 P a r k a n d Burstone Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
July 1986

a t i o n in lip p r o t r u s i o n u s i n g a d e n t o s k e l e t a l s t a n d a r d . and soft tissue osseous relations. AM J ORTHOD70-" 663-674,

H o w e v e r , i n t e r e s t i n g data f r o m the s t u d y also s h o w a '1976.
19. Jacobs JD: Vertical lip changes from maxillary incisor retraction.
great deal o f v a r i a t i o n in the v e r t i c a l d i m e n s i o n a n d in
AM J ORTHOD73: 397-404, 1978.
the c o n v e x i t y o f the face. H a r d - t i s s u e m e a s u r e m e n t s 20. Kim YH, Vietas JJ: Anterior posterior dysplasia index. AM J
a n d soft-tissue m e a s u r e m e n t s m a y n o t a l w a y s g i v e the ORTHOD73: 619-633, 1978.
s a m e i n f o r m a t i o n for a g i v e n patient. 21. Lines PA: Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. AM J ORTHOD73:
648-657, 1978.
SUMMARY 22. Vig PS: Vertical growth of the lips: A serial cephalometric study.
AM J ORTHOD75: 405-415, 1979.
T h i r t y a d o l e s c e n t p a t i e n t s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y treated 23. Dongieux J, Sassouni V: The contribution of mandibular posi-
to a c e p h a l o m e t r i c s t a n d a r d w i t h l o w e r incisors posi- tioned variation to facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 50: 334-339,
t i o n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.5 m m a n t e r i o r to the p o i n t 1980.
24. Lamastra SJ: Relationship between changes in skeletal and in-
A - p o g o n i o n line. L a r g e v a r i a t i o n was f o u n d in the
tegumental points A and B following orthodontic treatment. AM
a m o u n t o f lip p r o t r u s i o n e v e n t h o u g h t h e goal o f incisor J ORTHOD79: 416-423, 1981.
p o s i t i o n i n g w a s a c h i e v e d . Facial esthetics r e q u i r e s con- 25. Spradley FL, Jacobs JD, Crowe DP: Assessment of the antero-
s i d e r a t i o n o f soft-tissue factors in a d d i t i o n to h a r d - t i s s u e posterior soft-tissue contour of the lower facial third in the ideal
structures. young adult. AM J ORTHOD79: 316-325, 1981.
26. Oliver BM: The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper
The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable aid of lip response to incisor retraction. AM J ORTHOD82-" 141-149,
Mrs. Barbara Rich in the preparation of this article. 1982.
27. Centofante DM, Brittin MP, Williams PH: Anterior malocclusion
and soft tissue profile related to sound production and self-con-
REFERENCES cept. Angle Orthod 52: 313-324, 1982.
1. Angle EH: Malocclusion of the teeth, ed 7. Philadelphia, 1907, 28. Waldman BH: Change in lip contour with maxillary incisor re-
S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. traction. Angle Orthod 52: 129-134, 1982.
2. Steiner C: Cephalometrics for you and me. AM J ORTHOD39: 29. Holdaway RA: A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use
729-755, 1953. in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. AM J ORTHOD84: 1-
3. Tweed CH: Frankfort mandibular incisor angles in diagnosis, 28, 1983.
treatment planning, and prognosis. Angle Orthod 24: 121-169, 30. Holdaway RA: A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use
1954. in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. AM J ORTHOD85"-
4. Downs WB: Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 279-293, 1984.
26: 191-212, 1956. 31. Mansour S, Burstone CJ, Legan H: An evaluation of soft-tissue
5. Burstone CJ: The integumental profile. AM J ORTHOO44: 1-25, changes resulting from Le Fort I maxillary surgery. AM J ORTHOD
1958. 84: 37-47, 1983.
6. Burstone CJ: Integumental contour and extension patterns. Angle 32. Bishara SE, Peterson LC: Changes in facial dimensions and
Orthod 29: 93-104, 1959. relationships between the ages of 5 and 25 years. AM J ORTHOD
7. Burstone CJ: Lip posture and its significance in treatment plan- 85: 238-252, 1984.
ning. AM J ORTHOD53: 262-284, 1967. 33. Hunt NP, Rudge SJ: Facial profile and orthognathic surgery. Br
8. Burstone CJ et al: Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J J Orthod 11: 126-136, 1984.
Oral Surg 36: 269-277, 1978. 34. Hussels W, Handa RS: Analysis of factors affecting angle ANB.
9. Legan HL, Burstone CJ: Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for AM J ORTHOD85: 411-423, 1984.
orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38: 744-751, 1980. 35. De Smit A, Dermout L: Soft-tissue profile preference. AM J
10. Subtelny JD: A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures ORTHOD86: 67-73, 1984.
and their profile characteristics defined in relation to underlying 36. Mamandras AH: Growth of lips in two dimensions: A serial
skeletal structures. AM J ORTHOD45: 481-507, 1959. cephalometric study. AM J ORTHOD86: 61-66, 1984.
11. Subtelny JD: The soft tissue profile, growth, and treatment 37. Jacobson A: Psychological aspects of dentofacial esthetics and
changes. Angle Orthod 31: 105-122, 1961. orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 51: 208-213, 1984.
12. Ricketts RM: Cephalometric synthesis. AM J ORTHOD46: 647- 38. Ricketts RM et al: Orthodontic diagnosis and planning. Denver,
673, 1960. 1982, Rocky Mountain/Orthodontics.
13. Rudee DA: Proportional profile changes concomitant with ortho- 39. Orthodontic Data Base Analysis (Suppl 1). University of Con-
dontic therapy. AM J ORTHOD50: 421-433, 1964. necticut, Department of Orthodontics, 1970.
14. Merrifield LL: The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating 40. GraberTM, SwainBF: Orthodontics, current principles andtech-
facial esthetics. AM J ORTHOD52: 804-822, 1966. niques. St. Louis, 1985, The C. V. Mosby Company, p 40.
15. Ricketts RM: Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. 41. Burstone CJ: Treatment planning syllabus. Revised 1985, Uni-
AM J ORTHOD54: 272-289, 1968. versity of Connecticut, Department of Orthodontics.
16. Mauchamp C, Sassouni V: Growth and prediction of the skeletal
soft-tissue profiles. AM J ORTHOD64: 83-94, 1973. Reprint requests to:
17. Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM: Surgical orthodontic treat- Dr. Charles Burstone
ment planning: Profile analysis and mandibular surgery. Angle University of Connecticut
Orthod 46: 1-25, 1976. School of Dental Medicine
18. Shendel SA et al: Superior repositioning of the maxilla: Stability Farmington, CT 06032