The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An Evaluation of Nasolabial Angle and the Relative Inclinations of the Nose and Upper Lip

S Nandini, CS Prashanth, Sanju K Somiah, SRK Reddy

Citation Information : Nandini S, Prashanth C, Somiah SK, Reddy S. An Evaluation of Nasolabial Angle and the Relative Inclinations of the Nose and Upper Lip. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (3):152-157.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1026

Published Online: 01-06-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims and objectives

The study was done to evaluate a reliable method of constructing the nasolabial angle (NLA) and to correlate the soft tissue profile parameters with one another.

Materials and methods

Lateral cephalogram of 50 randomly selected adult patients were taken. The tracings were made and 10 copies of each tracing were randomly distributed to 10 different orthodontists to draw the NLA.

Results

Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) showed both N/ FH and L/FH angles to have significant p values when compared with NLA. The regression analysis showed that the nasolabial angle can be calculated for any given value of N/FH or L/FH by the formula: NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). The mean value of N/FH was 17.42° ± 8.40° and L/FH was 80.68° + 6.45° for this sample. Inter examiner reliability calculated by repeated measures of ANOVA and Dahlerg's formula showed high degree of reliability and reproducibility of the method.

Clinical significance

NLA can be predicted for any given value of N/FH and L/FH. NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). If an individual has either N/FH or L/FH in the normal range but not the NLA then one could calculate the correct NLA using this formula. Thereby the NLA can be brought within the normal range by altering the other nasolabial parameters by correct treatment planning. Since the nasolabial angle plays a vital role in profile esthetics of a person, the clinician should place greater emphasis in evaluating this area and plan treatment mechanics to place this angle within the accepted normal variation.

How to cite this article

Nandini S, Prashanth CS, Somiah SK, Reddy SRK. An Evaluation of Nasolabial Angle and the Relative Inclinations of the Nose and Upper Lip. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(3):152-157.


PDF Share
  1. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in a South Indian ethnic population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;133(6):876-81.
  2. Changes in facial dimensions and relationships between the ages 5 and 25 years. Am J Orthod 1984;85(3):238-51.
  3. Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1961;47(5):371-80.
  4. A statistical evaluation of nasal growth. Am J Orthod 1969;56(4):403-14.
  5. Prediction of normal soft tissue facial changes. The Angle Orthodontist 1975;45(1):12-25.
  6. The reproducibility of natural head posture: A methodical study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;93(4):280-88.
  7. A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth. Am J Orthod 1966;52(4):283-98.
  8. Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1987;9: 68-78.
  9. An evaluation of the nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992;102(4): 328-34.
  10. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in black American adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:30-38.
  11. Soft tissue changes concurrent with orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1974;66(4):367-75.
  12. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients. Am J Orthod 1972;61(1):45-53.
  13. Facial profile and orthognathic surgery. Br J Orthod 1984;11:126-35.
  14. Radiographic Cephalometry from basics to videoimaging. Alabama, Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc 1995;60-62.
  15. Vertical lip changes from maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1978;74(4):396-404.
  16. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980;38:744-51.
  17. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1184-89.
  18. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982;82(5): 384-91.
  19. An evaluation of soft tissue changes resulting from Lefort I maxillary surgery. Am J Orthod 1983;84(1):37-48.
  20. Growth changes in the nasal profile from 7 to 18 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;94(4):317-26.
  21. Craniofacial structure in Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;110(4): 431-38.
  22. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. The Angle Orthodontist 1990;60(3):177-89.
  23. Diagnostic block cephalometrics (Part I). J Clin Orthod 1984;18:400-22.
  24. Studies of dentofacial morphology – IV: Profile changes among 6829 white individuals according to age and sex. The Angle Orthodontist 1955;25(4):199-207.
  25. A longitudinal study of the growth of nose. Am J Orthod 1967;53(10):746-56.
  26. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;118(1):84-89.
  27. Relationship of skeletal pattern and nasal form. Am J Orthod 1986;89(6):499-506.
  28. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod 1964;50(6):421-34.
  29. Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J Orthod 1980;78(4):404-20.
  30. Adult cephalometric norms for Saudi Arabians with a comparison of values for Saudi and North American Caucasians. Br J Orthod 1987;14(4):273-79.
  31. Cephalometric changes in the soft tissue after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990;98(1):41-46.
  32. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes. The Angle Orthodontist 1961;31(2):105-22.
  33. Analysis of soft tissue facial profile in white males. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992;101(6):514-18.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.