299

Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I

G. William Arnett, DDS and Robert T. Bergman, DDS, MS
Santa Barbara, Calif.

The purpose of this article is twofold (1) to present an organized, comprehensive clinical
facial analysis and (2) to discuss the soft tissue changes associated with orthodontic and surgical
treatments of malocclusion. Facial examination leads to avoidance of potential orthodontic and
surgical facial balance decline and enhances diagnosis, treatment planning, treatment, and
quality of results. Patients are examined in natural head position, centric relation, and relaxed lip
posture. Nineteen key facial traits are analyzed. By examining the patient in this format, reliable
facial-skeletal traits can be recorded that enhance all aspects of care. Orthodontics and surgery
used to correct the bite alter facial traits; alteration should reverse negative traits and maintain
positive traits. This cannot be achieved without a complete understanding of the face before
treatment. Tooth movement (orthodontic or surgical) used to correct the bite can negatively
impact facial esthetics, especially if pretreatment esthetics are not defined before treatment.
Treating the bite based on model analysis or on osseous cephalometric standards without
examination of the face is not adequate. Three questions are asked regarding the 19 facial traits
before treatment: (1) What is the quality of the existing facial traits? (2) How will orthodontic
tooth movement to correct the bite affect the existing traits (positively or negatively)? (3) How
will surgical bone movement to correct the bite affect the existing traits (positively or
negatively)? This article is for orthodontists, and yet, much surgical information is included.
This is intentional. We only treat what we are educated to see. The more we see, the better the
treatment we render our patients. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1993;103:299-312.)
Diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment execution are the steps involved in
successful care of malocclusions. Diagnosis is the definition of the problem. Treatment planning
is based on diagnosis and is the process of planning changes needed to eliminate the problems.
Treatment is execution of the plan.
The treatment planning of facial esthetic changes is difficult, especially in terms of
integrating this with bite correction. Unfortunately, correction of the bite does not always lead
to correction, or even maintenance, of facial esthetics. At times, in the zeal to correct the bite,
facial balance decline may occur. Part of this problem may be due to lack of attention to
esthetics or simply a lack of understanding of what is desirable as an esthetic goal.
A person's ability to recognize a beautiful face is innate, but translating this into defined
treatment goals is problematic. Recognizing beauty is not practiced nor is it difficult. The
perception of beauty is an individual preference with cultural bias. Rules governing why a face
is beautiful are not understood nor are required for anyone to say that a face is beautiful. Artists
and health professionals have attempted to define and recreate an ideal. They recognize beauty,
yet objective standards are difficult, despite unending attempts to clarify this concept. As health
professionals have increased their ability to change faces, the necessity to understand what is
and is not beautiful has intensified.
With the advent of cephalometric headfilms, various analyses were developed in an
attempt to qualitate and quantitate esthetic facial profiles. Downs attempted to use hard tissue

300

measurements to analyze profile imbalance to differentiate between good and poor dentofacial
profiles.1
Several lines and angles have been used to evaluate soft tissue facial esthetics. The Hangle is formed by a line tangent to the chin and upper lip with the NB line.2 Holdaway said the
ideal face has an H-angle of 7 to 15, which is dictated by the patient's skeletal convexity.2 The
E-line, as described by Ricketts,3 describes the ideal position of the lower lip as two millimeters
behind the E-line. Ricketts also described soft tissue by relating beauty to mathematics. The
divine proportion was used by the ancient Greeks (ratio of 1.0 to 1.618) and was applied by
Ricketts to describe optimal facial esthetics.
Merrifield4 said the Z-angle measurement and profile line provides an accurate critical
description of the lower face relationship. The Z-angle is the angle formed by the Frankfort
plane and a profile line formed by touching the chin and the most procumbent lip. A patient
with normal FMA, IMPA, FMIA, and ANB measurements usually has a Z-angle of 80 as an
adult and 78 as a child 11 to 15 years of age.4 Scheideman, Bell, et al.5 studied the
anteroposterior points on the soft tissue profile below the nose. They dropped a true vertical
plane from the natural head position through subnasale and measured lip and chin relationships
to this line. They also assessed vertical soft tissue relationships of the face.
Worms and others6-8 discussed lip assessment for proportionality, interlabial gap, lower
face height, upper lip length, and lower lip length.
Another measurement used to study the soft tissue is the angle of convexity described by
Legan and Burstone.8,9 This is the angle formed by the soft tissue glabella, subnasale, and soft
tissue pogonion.8,9 The zero meridian line, developed by Gonzales-Ulloa,10 is a line
perpendicular to the Frankfort horizontal, passing through the nasion soft tissue to measure the
position of the chin. The chin should lie on this line or just short of it. The Steiner esthetic
plane11 and the Riedel plane12 have also been used to describe the facial profile. The Powell
analysis,13 which is made up of the nasofrontal angle, nasofacial angle, nasomental angle, and
mentocervical angle, has been developed to give insight into an ideal facial profile.
It is widely accepted that orthodontic tooth movement can alter esthetics. As orthodontists
have tried to describe beauty, they have also attempted to predict how orthodontic tooth
movement affects existing facial balance. Orthodontists have suggested that occlusion and facial
beauty are interdependent.1,11,14 It is theorized that when teeth are straightened and the
occlusion is corrected to osseous cephalometric standards, optimal facial esthetics will
result.1,11,15 Case16 believed the facial outline should be regarded as an important guide in
determining treatment when correcting a malocclusion. He recommended extraction of teeth to
retract procumbent lips. Angle17 related esthetics to the position of the maxillary incisor. In
evaluating facial beauty, Tweed15 concentrated on the position and inclination of the
mandibular incisors in relation to the basal bone. As a standard, lateral cephalometric headfilms
have been used to diagnose, treatment plan and predict hard tissue and soft tissue responses to
orthodontic treatment.1,11,15 Particularly important, cephalometric normative values have been
identified that guide diagnosis and tooth movement decisions.1,11,15,18-20 The cephalometric
analysis has been used as the standard because of the ease of procuring, measuring, and
comparing (superimposition) hard tissue structures and the belief that treating to cephalometric
hard tissue norms results in a pleasing face. These perceived advantages of cephalometric
analysis have led to heavy reliance on cephalometry in all aspects of orthodontic treatment.

301

Clinical facial examination has been subordinate to cephalometric examination in

treatment planning. Unlike cephalometry, procuring, measuring, and comparing changes is
difficult with facial examination. Normative values are available but they are not used to guide
diagnosis and tooth movement decisions as clearly as cephalometric values. This has led to
some de-emphasis of clinical examination in orthodontic treatment planning.
Unfortunately, reliance on cephalometric analysis and treatment planning sometimes
leads to esthetic problems.2,6,21,22-25 Many possible explanations exist for the inadequacy of
cephalometry. The assumption that bite correction, based on cephalometric standards, leads to
correct facial esthetics is not always true and may, in some instances, lead to less than desirable
facial outcomes.2,6,21-26 The soft tissue covering the teeth and bone can vary so greatly that
the dentoskeletal pattern may be inadequate in evaluating facial disharmony.7-9 When there is
an imbalance in the lip tissue thickness, facial disharmonies may be observed in the absence of
dentoskeletal disharmonies. Facial imbalance may be associated with lip inadequacy or lip
redundancy caused by lip length, underlying tissues being out of balance, or a problem in tissue
thickness or tone.9 Hambleton,27 in his article on the soft tissue covering of the skeletal face,
states that the facial curtain is more than just the underlying bone, it is also made up of muscles,
fatty tissue, nerves, and blood vessels. Burstone9 presented the idea that correcting the dental
discrepancy does not necessarily treat the facial imbalance and may even cause facial
disharmonies. Drobocky28 studied 160 four first premolar extraction patients and concluded
that "Ten to 15 percent of cases could be defined as excessively flat (dished-in) after treatment."
Park and Burstone23 studied 30 cases in which the lower incisor was 1.5 mm anterior to the APog line . This relationship is proposed by some orthodontists as the key to an esthetic profile.
The profiles of these 30 patients were found to be grossly different therefore casting doubt on
the reliability of the incisor-to-A-Pog line as a reliable esthetic guideline.
Another source of cephalometric inadequacy in facial diagnosis and treatment planning is
the cranial base. When the cranial base is used as the reference line to measure the facial profile,
bogus findings can be generated. Michiels24 studied 27 nonorthodontic, Class I patients to test
the validity of various popular cephalometric measurements used to predict clinical profiles. His
conclusions were that (1) measurements involving cranial base landmarks are inaccurate in
defining the actual clinical profile; (2) measurements involving intrajaw relationships were
slightly more accurate in reflecting the true profile; (3) no measurement is 100% accurate; and
(4) the soft tissue thickness and axial inclination of incisors are the most important variables in
inaccuracy.
Another source of cephalometric problems is that each cephalometric study examines
different measurements as being the key to diagnosis. Therefore, when different cephalometric
analyses are used to examine the same patient, different diagnoses, treatment plans, and results
can be generated. This disparity makes treatment planning based totally on cephalometry illadvised. Wylie21 analyzed 10 patients using five popular cephalometric analyses and found
only 40% agreement on treatment planning. He concluded that "cephalometrics should not be
the primary diagnostic tool for dentofacial diagnosis." Wylie's patient population had skeletal
malocclusions. Perhaps cephalometrics are more reliable as a predictor of tissue changes when
no skeletal disharmonies are present. Many cephalometric norms have been based on patient
populations that had no skeletal disharmonies. When these "normal values" from normal
populations are applied to anterioposterior and vertical skeletal disharmonies they lose validity.
It is unclear if the absence of skeletal malocclusions would improve the agreement among the

302

various cephalometric studies. It may be that there is simply no consistence of deformity if

different measurements are used.
Further problems with cephalometric diagnosis relate to the anatomic areas studied.
Facial analyses developed with cephalometric x-ray films, such as those by Holdaway,2,25
Merrifield,4 Burstone,9 and others,1,11,12,14,15 focused primarily on anterioposterior
orthodontically alterable dimensions of the face. Complete analysis requires incorporation of
vertical and transverse assessment of bite and facial needs. Few orthodontic analyses have used
transverse facial analysis because of the reliance on lateral (P-A) head films in diagnosis and
treatment planning. Some look at vertical disparities, whereas others do not.
Still another problem with cephalometric diagnosis and treatment planning is that the
norms may not be accurate because of different soft tissue posturing. In some studies, the soft
tissues were not in a repose position when measurements were made.1,9,12,14,15,29,30 This is
particularly disruptive in the vertical dimension. Vertical skeletal diagnosis depends on
assessment of the soft tissues in repose. Because early studies examined the patient in the closed
lip position, reliable norms for relaxed lip position may be lacking. Closed lip position may be
useful when no skeletal deformity exists, but in the case of skeletal deformity the closed lip
posture is not accurate in terms of diagnosis and treatment planning.
The last problem concerning cephalometric diagnosis is based on specialty. Cosmetic
changes created with surgical techniques require focus on areas which enhance surgical results.
Burstone7,9 and others1,11,12,14,15,19 noted that nose length, lip length, and nasolabial angle
are important aspects of facial esthetics, but they, and others, have not specifically oriented the
examination to surgical diagnosis and treatment planning.
Diagnosis and treatment planning, which are based on model analysis, are less predictable
than predicting facial changes on a cephalometric basis. When bite changes, based on model
assessment, are the only determinant of treatment, the facial result can be negative. Despite this,
Han et al.31 reported that 54.9% of treatment decisions in his study were based on models and
no other diagnostic information. This indicates that facial change was not a factor in treatment
planning for some orthodontists in Han's study. Models are essential for study of space
requirements, arch form, and interarch relationships. They do not shed light on existing and
therefore anticipated facial changes.
Models, cephalometrics and facial analysis together should provide the cornerstones of
successful diagnosis. Models and/or clinical bite examination indicate to the practitioner that
bite correction is necessary. Facial analysis should be used to identify positive and negative
facial traits and therefore how the bite should be corrected to optimize facial change needs.
This article presents analyses of 19 key facial traits as an adjunctive treatment planning
tool used to produce improved facial and dental results. Comprehensive facial trait analysis
should be used to enhance diagnosis, treatment planning, and quality of results for both surgical
and nonsurgical patients. In addition, this method provides a tool for organization,
understanding, and communication between the orthodontist, maxillofacial surgeon, and patient.
With this analysis, cosmetic problems can be optimally corrected and orthodontic tooth
movements that produce esthetic decline can be avoided. With this system, the predictability of
facial results should be much better than just with cephalometric treatment and/or model
guidelines. In many instances, the facial examination reveals cosmetic problems that indicate
skeletal disharmony and the need for surgery. In addition, this system can identify cosmetic-

303

skeletal disharmonies that preclude successful orthodontic correction. If the skeletal problem is
significant enough to alter facial trait balance, it may be too severe to be corrected successfully
with orthodontic tooth movement alone. With the analysis, ideal occlusal harmony is achieved
in all cases with desired cosmetic changes dictating whether orthodontic or surgical procedures
are used to achieve ideal occlusion. If orthodontic tooth movement will not produce necessary
facial changes, then surgery is indicated. This decision is made without cephalometric numbers.
In this system, the cephalometric x-ray film is not used for diagnosis, but rather as an aid to try
treatment options in the form of visual treatment objectives (VTO).32 The purpose of the VTO
is to assess how tooth and bone movement used to correct the bite will impact the face.
Frequently, different procedures will achieve the same corrected occlusion. Avoiding unwanted
facial change and obtaining desired cosmetic changes dictates which treatment is used. An
example of this is correcting a Class II occlusion with either a LeFort I impaction, mandibular
advancement, or upper first premolar extractions with headgear and Class II elastics. All three
treatments correct the bite but change the face in different ways. The procedure selected should
balance the face optimally. Facial examination can determine the best treatment for achieving
facial balance, whereas cephalometric analysis has been shown to be unreliable.2,6,7,9,2125,33,34
When attention is directed only to bite correction, facial balance may not improve and can
deteriorate. The orthodontist's job is to balance occlusal correction, temporomandibular joint
function, periodonal health, stability, and facial balance while moving the teeth to correct the
bite.
METHODS
An analysis of facial cosmetics was devised based on key landmarks relevant to optimal
orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment. Areas of examination were used for diagnosis,
orthodontic treatment planning (extraction patterns), and surgical treatment planning. The
cephalometric x-ray film was not used for diagnosis of skeletal problems, but was used to test
facial examination data by a variant of the VTO (visual treatment objective) process.32
The most important point in proper analysis of facial esthetics is the use of a clinical
format. Examination should not be based on static laboratory x-ray film and photographic
representation of the patient alone. Cephalometric x-ray films and photographs may improperly
position the patient's head orientation, condyle position, and lip posture. This can lead to
inaccurate diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment. These variables can be controlled by
the doctor during clinical examination of the patient, as opposed to the lack of control found
with commercial laboratories, dental assistants, or laboratory technicians. This is not to say that
commercial records are not part of the permanent record, but the clinically controlled, reliable,
doctor-verified record is imperative to ensuring accuracy.
Natural head posture, centric relation (uppermost condyle position),35 and relaxed lip
posture can be assessed and maintained in the office so that valid examination data can be
collected. By examining the patient in this format, reliable facial-skeletal data can be obtained
that enhances diagnosis, treatment planning, treatment, and quality of results. Natural head
posture is preferred because of its demonstrated accuracy over intracranial landmarks. Natural
head posture has a 2 standard deviation compared with a 4 to 6 standard deviation for the
various intracranial landmarks in use.36,37

304

Natural head posture36 is the head orientation the patient assumes naturally (Fig. 1, A).
Patients do not carry their heads with the Frankfort horizontal parallel to the floor.1 Therefore
this landmark should not dictate head posture used for treatment planning. A leveled, flat
Frankfort horizontal (Fig. 1, B) creates a Class III profile (chin protrusion) with cephalometric
values consistent with upper incisor flaring and lower incisor retraction. A leveled, steep
Frankfort horizontal (Fig. 1, C) creates a Class II profile (chin retrusion) with cephalometric
values consistent with upper incisor retraction and lower incisor flaring. Skeletal changes made
based on these inappropriate skeletal orientations will look good on the head film but not when
the patient assumes natural head posture. When skeletal changes are made relative to natural
head position appropriateness is ensured in the resulting soft tissue profile.1
All examination data should be recorded in centric relation since orthodontic and surgical
results are strictly in this position to produce precise function. Centric relation, as used in this
article, is the uppermost position described by Dawson.35 If head films are taken in a postured
position, all interarch relationships are incorrect. Posturing of the mandible can decrease the
severity of Class II (Fig. 2) and increase the severity of Class III relationships (Fig. 3). Models
may indicate and clarify the true mandibular position, but patients can also posture during
model wax bite fabrication. The only direct evidence of posturing is tomographic representation
of the condyle on the eminence rather than in the glenoid fossa. Unfortunately, tomograms are
not taken as a routine diagnostic aid in the orthodontic nor surgical work-up.
Centric relation can be established as follows:
1. Patient in a 45 sitting position.
2. Use a warmed, double-thickness piece of pink base plate wax.
3. Guide the opening and closing to first tooth contact, nondeflected position.
4. Trim the wax bite to the buccal surfaces of the teeth.
5. Repeat step three.
6. Wash the wax bite in cold water.
7. Repeat step 3.
Guided closure consists of gentle manipulation of the chin in the direction of the arc of
closure and does not involve more than gentle pressure in a posterior direction. Closure is
stopped at the first tooth contact because deflections of the mandible start at that point and alter
skeletal (chin) and lower incisor midline structures during facial analysis. The wax bite is used
for head films, tomograms, model mounting, and facial analysis. This ensures consistency of
data and treatment results.
This positioning of the condyles has been shown consistent with the Roth power centric
on mandibular position indicator (MPI) and tomographic study. The technique described
previously should be reliable on symptom-free, resolved TMJ patients.
The relaxed lip position is obtained while the patient is in centric relation by the
following method7:
1. Ask the patient to relax.

305

2. Stroke the lips gently.

3. Take multiple measurements on different occasions.
4. Use casual observation while the patient is unaware of being observed.
This method ensures soft tissue diagnosis accuracy. Surgical plans derived from these
measurements will be correct. The patient should be in the relaxed lip position because it
demonstrates the soft tissue, relative to hard tissue, without muscular compensation for
dentoskeletal abnormalities. Vertical disharmony between lip lengths and skeletal height
(vertical maxillary excess, vertical maxillary deficiency, mandibular protrusion, mandibular
retrusion with deep bite) can not be assessed without the relaxed lip posture. Existing positions
and needed changes in upper incisor exposure, interlabial gap, lip length, and proportion are lost
in the closed lip position. Closed lip position may be adequate for normoskeletal cases but is
totally inadequate for skeletal disharmony assessment (Figs. 4 and 5). When the lips contact
(distortion), the bite should be opened (Fig. 4, B) by placing a wax bite between the teeth until
the lips separate in the repose posture. By using this open bite posturing, lip length and position
distortion is avoided. Soft tissue cosmetic problems can then be assessed relative to needed bite
changes.
With the natural head posture, centric relation, and relaxed lip position, the patient is
visualized in all three planes of space:
1. Anterior-posterior
2. Transverse
3. Vertical
Key traits chosen for this facial examination were those that lead to superior orthodontic
as well as surgical results. Two factors were important in regard to how this examination was
formulated:
1. The specific traits that were selected for inclusion.
2. The normative values for the selected traits.
As with cephalometrics, there are hundreds of facial soft tissue traits that have been
studied. This examination consists of 19 of these traits. Inclusion of a trait within the study was
dependent on the high significance of the trait to successful orthodontic and surgical facial
outcomes. Examination of key traits in three planes of space was necessary. The normal values
are a combination of previous studies (Table I) and 20 years of surgical experience.
The use of surgical experience to assess existing and needed changes of the face is, at
best, suspect but art is a necessary part of facial beauty. There is also a problem with using
normative values. The original facial studies,7-9,18,29,30,38 identified different normative
values and did not study all the significant traits. An example of the variability is the nasolabial
angle (Table I). Burstone7 reports a range of 73.8 plus or minus 8, Legan8 102 plus or minus 8,
Farkas29 99.1 plus or minus 8.7 (female), UMKC38 104.9 to 116.7, and Lehman39 102 plus or
minus 8. Many reasons exist for the inconsistency between different study norms (Table II),
including the following:

306

1. Different racial origins within the study populations.

2. Some studies contained malocclusions, whereas some studies had normal bites or Class
I occlusions only.
3. Some studies were in closed lip positions, whereas others were in relaxed lip position.
4. Some studies used head films oriented to cranial base structures, others were in natural
head position.
5. Some values were from clinical measurement, although most were from cephalometric
x-ray films.
6. The exact way of measuring the same trait may be different from one study to the next.
7. Some studies contained patients who were not fully grown.
With the discrepancy of norms, each patient being examined should be studied with
norms appropriate to that patient (race, age, lip posture, head orientation). Norms should be
used for guidance but not as absolute guidelines for changes. By asking the following three
questions, the best treatment plan becomes apparent:
1. What is the quality (good or bad) of the existing facial traits?
2. How will the orthodontic tooth movement to correct the bite affect the existing traits
(positively or negatively)? If orthodontic tooth movement necessary for bite correction results in
unacceptable facial balance decline, surgery is indicated to avoid this negative facial outcome
(i.e., opening the nasolabial angle with upper premolar extractions, headgear and Class II
elastics).
3. When surgery is necessary, which surgery (maxilla, mandible, or both) will be
necessary to normalize negative and maintain positive facial traits while correcting the bite?
The ideal treatment plan must be formulated that affects the facial traits in the most
positive fashion, while correcting the bite. The treatment plan should be orthodontic or surgical
orthodontic as determined by facial examination. Orthodontic tooth movement may satisfy bite
and facial correction or surgery of one or both jaws may be necessary. Four possible treatments
exist for each patient: (1) orthodontics alone, (2) orthodontics plus lower jaw surgery, (3)
orthodontics plus upper jaw surgery and (4) orthodontics plus both upper and lower jaw surgery.
The treatment that optimizes occlusion (bite and TMJ harmony), facial balance, stability, and
periodontal health is chosen. If treatment harms the patient, it should not be rendered.

References:
1. Downs WB. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 1956;26:191-212.
2. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment
planning. Part I. AM J ORTHOD 1983;84(1):1-28.
3. Ricketts RM. Esthetics, environment and the law of lip relation. AM J ORTHOD
1968;54:272-89.

307

4. Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. AM J
ORTHOD 1966;52:804-22.
5. Scheideman GB, Bell WH, Legan HL, Finn RA, Reisch JS. Cephalometric analysis of
dentofacial normals. AM J ORTHOD 1980;78(4):404-20.
6. Worms FW, Spiedel TM, Bevis RR, Waite DE. Posttreatment stability and esthetics of
orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 1980;50(4):251-73.
7. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. AM J ORTHOD
1967;53:262-84.
8. Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral
Surg 1980;38:744-51.
9. Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. AM J ORTHOD 1958;44:1-25.
10. Gonzales-Ulloa M, Stevens E. The role of chin correction in profile plasty. Plast Reconstr
Surg 1961;36:364-73.
11. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959:29:8-29.
12. Riedel RA. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. AM J ORTHOD 1957;43:103-19.
13. Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the esthetic face. New York: Thieme-Stratton,
1984.
14. Tweed CH. Indications for extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. AM J ORTHOD
ORAL SURG 1944;30:405-28.
15. Tweed CH. Frankfort mandibular incisor angles in diagnosis, treatment planning and
prognosis. Angle Orthod 1954;24:121-69.
16. Case CA. A practical treatise on the techniques and principles of dental orthopedia and
prosthetic correction of cleft palate. 2nd ed. Chicago: CS Case, 1922.
17. Angle EH. Malocclusion of the teeth. 7th ed. Philadelphia: SS White Dental Manufacturing,
1907.
18. Broadbent BH Sr, Broadbent GH Jr, Golden WH. Bolton standards of dentofacial
developmental growth. St Louis: CV Mosby,1975.
19. Ricketts RM, Roth RH, Chaconos SJ, Schulhof RJ, Engle GA. Orthodontic diagnosis
planning. Denver: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, 1982.
20. Behrents RG. An atlas of growth in the aging craniofacial skeleton. Monograph 18. Ann
Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan. 1985.
21. Wylie GA, Fish LC, Epker BN. Cephalometrics: a comparison of five analyses currently
used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg 1987;2(1):1536.
22. Jacobson A. Planning for orthognathic surgery art or science? Int J Adult Orthod Orthog
Surg 1990;5(4):217-24.
23. Park YC, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue profile falacies of hard tissue standards in treatment
planning. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1986;90(1):52-62.

308

24. Michiels LYF, Tourne LPM. Nasion true vertical: a proposed method for testing the clinical
validity of cephalometric measurements applied to a new cephalometric reference line. Int J
Adult Orthod Orthog Surg 1990;5(1):43-52.
25. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment
planning. Part II. AM J ORTHOD 1984;85:279-93.
26. Talass MF, Baker RC. Soft tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary
incisors. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1987;91(5):385-94.
27. Hambleton RS. The soft tissue covering of the skeletal face as related to orthodontic
problems. AM J ORTHOD 1964;50:405-20.
28. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with
extraction of four first premolars. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1989;95(5):220-30.
29. Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. New York: Elsevier North
Holland Inc., 1981.
30. Farkas LG, Kolar JC. Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women's faces. Clin Plast
Surg 1987;14:599-615.
31. Han MK, Vig KWL, Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ. Consistency of orthodontic
treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Abstract. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC
ORTHOP 1991;100(3):212-9.
32. Fish LC, Epker BN. Surgical-orthodontic cephalometric prediction tracing. J Clin Orthod
1980;14:36-52.
33. Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Speidel TM. Surgical orthodontic treatment planning: profile
analysis and mandibular surgery. Angle Orthod 1976;46(1):1-25.
34. Jacobson A. Orthognathic diagnosis using the proportionate template. J Oral Surg
1980;38:820-33.
35. Dawson PE. Optimum TMJ condyle position in clinical practice. Int J Periodont Restor Dent
1985;3:11-31.
36. Moorrees CFA, Kean MR. Natural head position, a basic consideration in the interpretation
of cephalometric radiographs. Am J Phys Anthropol 1958;16:213-34.
37. Cooke MS, Wei SHY. The reproducibility of natural head posture: a methodological study.
AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1988;93(4):280-8.
38. Alizadeh CM, Kirchhoff ST, Masunaga MI, Sekijima RK. Lenard-Burstone cephalometric
analysis. Kansas City: University of Missouri at Kansas City, Department of Orthodontics,
1986.
39. Lehman JA. Soft-tissue manifestations of the jaws: diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg
1987;14:767-83.

309

Fig. 1. Patient with Class I malocclusion. A, When postural horizontal is used to assess
facial balance, true facial appearance is seen. Frankfort horizontal does not affect the
positioning of the face and therefore surgical or orthodontic decisions. B, The patient's head is
oriented to cephalometric Frankfort horizontal. When porion is relatively superior and/or
orbitale is inferior, the resulting Frankfort horizontal is flat. When the Frankfort plane is leveled
to the floor, the chin is rotated forward and the patient appears Class III. C, The patient's head is
oriented to cephalometric Frankfort horizontal. When porion is relatively inferior and/or orbitale
is superior, the resulting Frankfort horizontal is steep. When the Frankfort plane is leveled to the
floor, the chin is rotated back and the patient appears Class ll.

Fig. 2. Patient with Class II malocclusion with condyles in different positions. A, With
the condyle seated in the uppermost fossa position, the Class II skeletal pattern is apparent,
revealing a possible need for surgical lengthening of the mandible. B, The same Class II
mandibular retrusion with the mandible postured forward. (If the cephalometric x-ray films are
postured incorrectly, models and/or tomograms may indicate the true bite position.) Laboratory
cephalometric x-ray films can miss the Class II skeletal relationship because of forward
posturing of the lower jaw during x-ray procurement. An incorrect, nonsurgical diagnosis and
treatment plan can result from this mandibular posturing error.

310

Fig. 3. Patient with Class III malocclusion with condyles in different positions. A, A
patient with Class III malocclusion with condyles seated in the uppermost fossa position. B,
Some patients with Class III malocclusions posture the lower jaw forward when the teeth hit
edge to edge. (If the cephalometric x-ray films are postured incorrectly, models and/or
tomograms may indicate the true bite position.) The anterior posturing pulls the condyles
forward from the uppermost fossa position, which increases the severity of the Class III. This
postured condyle position may falsely indicate the need for surgical mandibular setback.

Fig. 4. When bite is deep, causing relaxed lips to contact and compress, soft tissue cannot
be assessed accurately. The bite should be opened until the lips no longer touch. In this position
the true lip length can be measured without lip interference produced by bite overclosure. A wax
bite is used to open the bite. A, A patient with deep bite and short lips created by bite
overclosure and resulting lip compression. The lip length is normal, but overclosure compresses
the lips, shortening their actual length. B, Proper examination of this patient is with the bite
open until the lips are no longer in compression. Surgical/orthodontic treatment planning can be
accurately performed when the true lip length and posture are revealed by opening the bite.
Skeletal movements needed to produce ideal relationships (i.e., upper tooth to lip) can then be
planned.

311

Fig. 5. Patient with vertical maxillary excess is depicted. A, When the skeletal
length is long, the lips need to be assessed in the relaxed position. This position reveals
skeletal and soft tissue drape disharmony. B, When the skeletal length is long, the
closed lip position masks the true relationship of the skeletal structures and lips. No
accurate plans can be made from the closed lip position when skeletal disharmony
exists.

312