Pilot study on comparative assessment of facial profile changes using photographic images and cephalometric radiographs: a pre and post-orthodontic treatment analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20883/jofa.66Keywords:
orthodontic treatment, facial profile, cephalometric radiograph, photographic images, profile changesAbstract
Aim. This study aimed to compare changes in facial profile as assessed by photographic images and cephalometric radiographs, before and after orthodontic treatment, and evaluate the feasibility of substituting cephalometric radiographs with photographs in the post‑treatment assessment of facial profile.
Material and methods. Thirteen patients receiving orthodontic treatment at the Department of Maxillofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics at the Medical University of Poznan were included. Photographic and radiographic documentation including lateral cephalometric radiographs and profile photographs, both pre and post‑treatment, were analyzed. Various angles and distances were measured to assess changes in the facial profile. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica v.13 software.
Results. Significant changes were noted in several parameters when comparing pre and post‑treatment records. These changes varied depending on whether the assessment was conducted using photographs or cephalometric radiographs. While photographs revealed visible changes in the facial profile, key skeletal and dental information could only be ascertained through cephalometric analysis.
Conclusion. Although photographs are valuable for tracking visible changes and patient communication, their limitations for precise measurements and inherent variability hinder their standalone use for post‑treatment assessment. Our findings underline the continued importance of cephalometric radiographs in comprehensive orthodontic assessment. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these results and further explore this area of orthodontic study.
Downloads
References
Johal A, Alyaqoobi I, Patel R, Cox S. The impact of orthodontic treatment on quality of life and self-esteem in adult patients. Eur J Orthod. 2015 Jun;37(3):233-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju047.
Md Lepi J, Norman NH. Evolution of facial profile and soft tissue methods of orthodontic assessments: A narrative review. J Int Oral Health 2022;14:215-21. doi: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_302_21.
Hou D, Capote R, Bayirli B, Chan DCN, Huang G. The effect of digital diagnostic setups on orthodontic treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Apr;157(4):542-549. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.008.
Thurzo A, Strunga M, Havlínová R, Reháková K, Urban R, Surovková J, Kurilová V. Smartphone-Based Facial Scanning as a Viable Tool for Facially Driven Orthodontics? Sensors (Basel). 2022 Oct 12;22(20):7752. doi: 10.3390/s22207752.
Booij JW, Serafin M, Fastuca R, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Caprioglio A. Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions. J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 2;11(11):3170. doi: 10.3390/jcm11113170.
Johal A, Cheung MY, Marcene W. The impact of two different malocclusion traits on quality of life. Br Dent J. 2007 Jan 27;202(2):E2. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2007.33.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):111-27. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
Tng TT, Chan TC, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod. 1994 Apr;16(2):110-20. doi: 10.1093/ejo/16.2.110.
