ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2024
Correlation Between Cephalometric Values and Soft Tissue Profile in Class I and Class II Adult Patients based on Vertical Patterns.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Growth Prediction in Orthodontics: ASystematic Review of Past Methods up to Artificial Intelligence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Innovative Aesthetic and Functional Orthodontic Planning with Hard and Soft Tissue Analyses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Holdaway analysis exhibits the highest correlation with facial profile attractiveness among nine cephalometric analyses.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Assessment of Collum Angle in Different Sagittal Malocclusions: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare soft tissue profile variations between Class I and Class II adult patients due to three vertical skeletal facial patterns (normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent) and determine which skeletal variation has the most significant impact on soft tissue profile. Methods: Retrospective soft tissue profile analysis was performed on lateral cephalograms of 131 adult patients. The analysis was divided into two categories correlated with subnasal and general soft tissue profiles. The sample was divided based on two sagittal skeletal patterns (Class I and II) and three vertical groups. In addition, comparisons were made between males and females. Viewbox 4 was used for the analysis. Descriptive, comparative, and correlation statistics were performed using SPSS software. Results: Statistically significant inter-gender differences were found at the subnasal profile level, but not at the general profile level. No significant differences were observed when comparing subnasal profiles for the sagittal groups. However, significant differences were observed at the level of the general profile, especially at the level of Z-angle, lower lip, and chin prominence. In the vertical groups, hyperdivergent facial patterns had significant differences at the level of subnasal and general profiles compared with other vertical facial patterns. Conclusion: Females had more convex subnasal profiles than males. Hyperdivergent facial patterns had an impact on both general and subnasal soft tissue profiles. The sagittal dimension affected only the general soft tissue profile. Therefore, changes in the vertical dimension had the greatest impact on facial esthetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.