Differences in facial soft tissue deviations in Class III patients with different types of mandibular asymmetry: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Ho-Jin Kim; Hyung-Kyu Noh; Hyo-Sang Park

doi:10.4041/kjod23.106

Article

home

All Articles

View

Split Viewer

Original Article

Korean J Orthod 2023; 53(6): 402-419 https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod23.106

First Published Date September 7, 2023, Publication Date November 25, 2023

Differences in facial soft tissue deviations in Class III patients with different types of mandibular asymmetry: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Ho-Jin Kim , Hyung-Kyu Noh, Hyo-Sang Park

Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

Correspondence to:Hyo-Sang Park.
Professor and Chairman, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, 2175 Dalgubeol-daero, Jung-gu, Daegu 41940, Korea.
Tel +82-53-600-7373 e-mail parkhs@knu.ac.kr

How to cite this article: Kim HJ, Noh HK, Park HS. Differences in facial soft tissue deviations in Class III patients with different types of mandibular asymmetry: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod 2023;53(6):402-419. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod23.106

Received: May 11, 2023; Revised: August 25, 2023; Accepted: September 4, 2023

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed the differences in soft tissue deviations of the nose, lips, and chin between different mandibular asymmetry types in Class III patients. Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography data from 90 Class III patients with moderate-to-severe facial asymmetry were investigated. The sample was divided into three groups based on the extent of mandibular rolling, yawing, and translation. Soft tissue landmarks on the nose, lips, and chin were investigated vertically, transversely, and anteroposteriorly. A paired t test was performed to compare variables between the deviated (Dv) and nondeviated (NDv) sides, and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test was performed for intergroup comparisons. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between the soft and hard tissue deviations. Results: The roll-dominant group showed significantly greater differences in the vertical positions of the soft tissue landmarks between the Dv and NDv than other groups (P < 0.05), whereas the yaw-dominant group exhibited larger differences in the transverse and anteroposterior directions (P < 0.05). Moreover, transverse lip cant was correlated with the menton (Me) deviation and mandibular rolling in the roll-dominant group (P < 0.001); the angulation of the nasal bridge or philtrum was correlated with the Me deviation and mandibular yawing in the yaw-dominant group (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The three-dimensional deviations of facial soft tissue differed based on the mandibular asymmetry types in Class III patients with similar amounts of Me deviation. A precise understanding of soft tissue deviation in each asymmetry type would help achieve satisfactory facial esthetics.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography, Facial asymmetry, Mandibular asymmetry type, Soft tissue deviation

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, demands for improving facial asymmetry along with esthetic perception have increased. Improvement in facial asymmetry is attributed to an in-depth diagnostic analysis of underlying hard tissue and facial soft tissue.¹^-³ With the aid of current three-dimensional (3D) imaging techniques, such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and facial scanning, precise diagnostic data can be obtained to analyze the hard and soft tissue features of patients.⁴^,⁵ Notably, as perceived facial asymmetry mostly depends on soft tissue features, treatment success relies on the soft tissue outcome. Therefore, a sufficient understanding of the soft tissue deviation relative to skeletal asymmetry is crucial to ensure high treatment predictability.

The prevalence of asymmetry is higher in skeletal Class III patients than in Class I or II patients.⁶^-⁸ Considering the fact that the mandible is affected in 74% of facial asymmetry patients,⁶ the influence of mandibular asymmetry on the facial soft tissue might be crucial. As the asymmetric mandibles have different amounts of yaw and roll rotations and related morphologic alterations, the facial soft tissue could be affected accordingly. However, previous studies that have reported soft tissue menton (Me’) deviation, transverse cant or lateral deviation of the lips, and nasal deviation were only based on a single asymmetry group.⁹^-¹² Because of this limitation, it would be difficult to elaborate on which part of soft tissue deviations is closely associated with a certain deviation of the underlying bone.

By grouping different asymmetry types, previous studies have effectively revealed the respective traits of dental compensation in each asymmetry type.¹³^,¹⁴ Mandibular asymmetry can be clearly described using 3D rotations, such as roll and yaw, or translation, as suggested by Ackerman et al.¹⁵ These terminologies are commonly used to indicate exact dentofacial positions, whereas several new specific classifications of mandibular asymmetry have been reported in other previous studies,¹³^,¹⁶^,¹⁷ thus enhancing our understanding of the relationship between hard and soft tissue deviations. Meanwhile, regarding methodologies of soft tissue analysis, earlier studies mainly measured the deviation of the lips or Me’ position but rarely measured the deviation in other areas, such as the nose, nasolabial fold, and chin contour.¹⁰^,¹¹^,¹⁸^,¹⁹ In addition, the soft tissues were quantified three-dimensionally using the volume or thickness of multiple grid-based areas in other previous studies;¹^,³^,²⁰ however, the averaged values of the areas might obscure precise measurements on specific landmarks. These limited data may lead to low predictability of soft tissue changes and insufficient improvement in facial asymmetry after surgery. In other words, by measuring soft tissue vertically, transversely, and anteroposteriorly with more specific landmarks, the 3D soft tissue deviation patterns related to each mandibular asymmetry type would be clearly obtained and easily understood by clinicians, and this information can be used to predict the soft tissue responses of each soft tissue after surgical skeletal movement of different mandibular asymmetry types.

Therefore, this study aimed to measure the 3D soft tissue deviation of the nose, lips, and chin in Class III patients with roll-, yaw-, and translation-dominant mandibular asymmetries. The soft tissue measurements were also assessed to determine their correlation with the underlying skeletal and dental measurements. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in soft tissue deviations between the different mandibular asymmetry types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Kyungpook National University Dental Hospital (KNUDH-2022-12-03-00).

The sample size was determined using G*power (version 3.1.9.7; Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) with reference to previous CBCT research on soft tissue analysis.⁴ The appropriate sample size was calculated to be 28 patients in each group, with a test power of 0.80, a two-sided significance level of 0.05, and an effect size of 0.78. To increase the power of this study, 30 patients were enrolled in each group.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients with skeletal Class III relationship (point A-nasion-point B angle [ANB] < 0°), moderate-to-severe facial asymmetry (> 4 mm menton [Me] deviation relative to the midsagittal plane [MSP]),²¹^,²² and no or mild dental crowding (tooth size-arch length discrepancy < 3 mm). The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with congenital missing teeth except for the third molars, dental spacing, dental prosthesis, and a history of previous orthodontic treatment, orthognathic surgery, or craniofacial syndrome and/or trauma.

The total sample group included 90 patients (59 males and 31 females; age, 21.75 ± 2.78 years; age range, 18–37.9 years) who underwent an orthodontic diagnosis using CBCT scans at Kyungpook National University Dental Hospital, Daegu, Korea, between January 2010 and December 2018. Cone beam computed tomography scans (120 kVp, 15 mA, 19-cm field of view, 0.377 mm voxel size, 9.6-s scan time) were acquired using a CT scanner (CB MercuRay, Hitachi, Osaka, Japan), and variables were measured using the Invivo 6 anatomy imaging software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA, USA).

The enrolled patients were classified into three asymmetry groups according to the extent of mandibular rolling (the angle formed by the mandibular horizontal plane [MHP] to Frankfort horizontal plane [FHP]), yawing (the angle formed by the mandibular midsagittal plane [MnMSP] to MSP), and translation (the distance between the midpoint of bilateral mental foramen [MFmid] and MSP) (Figure 1).²² The roll-dominant group consisted of patients with > 5° mandibular rolling and < 3° mandibular yawing; the yaw-dominant group, patients with > 5° mandibular yawing and < 3° mandibular rolling; and the translation-dominant group, patients with < 3° mandibular rolling and yawing and > 4 mm MFmid deviation relative to MSP.

Figure 1. A, Skeletal landmarks and cranial reference planes. B, Mandibular rolling and yawing based on the mandibular reference planes.
FH, Frankfort horizontal; Cg, crista galli; Or, orbitale; Po, porion; Go, gonion; MF, mental foramen; PM, protuberance menti; Me, menton; MFmid, midpoint of the bilateral MF; NDv, nondeviated side; Dv, deviated side; Mn, mandibular; Rt, right; Lt, left; Op, opisthion.

Cephalometric variables were measured to investigate the sagittal and vertical skeletal relationships in each group.

Definitions of soft tissue, skeletal, and dental landmarks and variables used in this study are described in Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 1–4.

Figure 2. Skeletal and dental measurements. A, Skeletal distance and angulation. B, Dental vertical distance.
FH, Frankfort horizontal; Go, gonion; MSP, midsagittal plane; MFmid, midpoint of bilateral mental foramen; Me, menton; UM, maxillary first molar; NDv, nondeviated side; LM, mandibular first molar; UC, maxillary canine; LC, mandibular canine; Dv, deviated side.

Figure 3. Soft tissue landmarks investigated in this study.
G’, soft tissue glabella; N’, soft tissue nasion; Prn, pronasale; Al, nasal ala; NDv, nondeviated side; Dv, deviated side; Sn, subnasale; Ls, labrale superius; NLF, nasolabial fold; Stms, stomion superius; Stmi, stomion inferius; Ch, cheilion; Li, labrale inferius; B’, soft tissue B point; Midchin, chin point at the level of midpoint of Ch and Subchin; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour; Pog’, soft tissue pogonion; Me’, soft tissue menton; Ac, nasal alar curvature; Me, menton.

Figure 4. Soft tissue measurements. A, Vertical distance. B, Transverse distance (blue, bilateral landmarks; black, midline landmarks). C, Anteroposterior distance. D, Line angulation.
FH, Frankfort horizontal; Al, nasal ala; NDv, nondeviated side; Dv, deviated side; Ac, nasal alar curvature; Ch, cheilion; Me, menton; Me’, soft tissue menton; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour; G’, soft tissue glabella; N’, soft tissue nasion; MSP, midsagittal plane; Prn, pronasale; Sn, subnasale; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ls, labrale superius; Stms, stomion superius; Stmi, stomion inferius; Li, labrale inferius; B’, soft tissue B point; Pog’, soft tissue pogonion; Midchin, chin point at the level of midpoint of Ch and Subchin.

Table 1 . Landmarks and reference planes used in this study

Landmark	Definition
Skeletal
Or	The most inferior point of the lower orbital margin
Po	The most superior point of the external auditory meatus
Cg	The most superior point on the crista galli
Op	The midpoint of the posterior border of the foramen magnum
Go	The most inferior point of gonial angle on the lateral view
Cd	The most superior point of the condylar head
Me	The most inferior point on the symphyseal outline
MF	The most inferior point of the mental foramen
MFmid	The midpoint of the MF of both sides
PM	The point where the curvature changes from concave to convex at the most anterior symphyseal border
Dental
UM	The central fossa of the maxillary first molar
UC	The cusp tip of the maxillary canine
LM	The central fossa of the mandibular first molar
LC	The cusp tip of the mandibular canine
Soft tissue
G’	The most anterior midpoint of the forehead
N’	The most posterior midpoint on the contour of the nasal root
Prn	The most anterior midpoint of the nasal tip
Sn	The midpoint located at the junction of the nasal columella and upper lip
Al	The most lateral point on each nasal alar contour
Ac	The most posterior point on each alar-facial groove
Ls	The midpoint of the vermilion line of the upper lip
Li	The midpoint of the vermilion line of the lower lip
Stms	The most inferior midpoint of the lower border of the upper lip
Stmi	The most superior midpoint of the upper border of the lower lip
NLF	The most posterior point on each nasolabial fold at the vertical level of the midpoint of Sn and Ls
Ch	The most lateral point on each labial commissure
B’	The most posterior midpoint on the mentolabial sulcus
Pog’	The most anterior midpoint of the chin
Me’	The most inferior midpoint on the lower contour of the chin
Subchin	The point on each lower contour of the chin at the 15mm lateral to Me’
Midchin	The point on each chin contour at the level of the midpoint of Ch and Subchin
Reference plane
Frankfort horizontal plane (FHP)	The plane passing by Po of both sides and right Or
Midsagittal plane (MSP)	The plane passing by Cg and Op, perpendicular to the FHP
Coronal plane	The plane passing by Cg, perpendicular to the FHP and MSP
Mandibular horizontal plane (MHP)	The plane passing by three points, bilateral MFs and PM
Mandibular midsagittal plane (MnMSP)	The plane passing by Me and MFmid, perpendicular to the MHP

Or, orbitale; Po, porion; Cg, crista galli; Op, opisthion; Go, gonion; Cd, condylion; Me, menton; MF, mental foramen; PM, protuberance menti; UM, maxillary first molar; UC, maxillary canine; LM, mandibular first molar; LC, mandibular canine; G’, soft tissue glabella; N’, soft tissue nasion; Prn, pronasale; Sn, subnasale; Al, nasal ala; Ac, nasal alar curvature; Ls, labrale superius; Li, labrale inferius; Stms, stomion superius; Stmi, stomion inferius; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ch, cheilion; B’, soft tissue B point; Pog’, soft tissue pogonion; Me’, soft tissue menton.

Table 2 . Variables measured in this study

Variables	Definition
Skeletal
Distance
Menton deviation	The distance between Me and MSP
Body length	The distance between Me and Go
Ramus height	The distance between Go and Cd
Go to MSP	The distance between the Go and MSP
MFmid deviation	The distance between the MFmid and MSP
Angulation
Ramus inclination	The angle between the ramus axial line (Cd-Go) and MSP
∠MHP to FHP	The angle between the MHP and FHP (projected on the coronal plane)
∠MnMSP to MSP	The angle between the MnMSP and MSP (projected on the FHP)
Dental
Vertical distance
UM or UC to FHP	The distance between the UM or UC and FHP
LM or LC to FHP	The distance between the LM or LC and FHP
Soft tissue
Vertical distance
Al or Ac to FHP	The distance between the Al or Ac and FHP
Ch to FHP	The distance between the Ch and FHP
Subchin to FHP	The distance between the Subchin and FHP
Transverse distance
G’ or N’ to MSP	The distance between the G’ or N’ and MSP
Prn or Sn to MSP	The distance between the Prn or Sn and MSP
Al or Ac to MSP	The distance between the Al or Ac and MSP
NLF to MSP	The distance between the NLF and MSP
Ls or Li to MSP	The distance between the Ls or Li and MSP
Stms or Stmi to MSP	The distance between the Stms or Stmi and MSP
Ch to MSP	The distance between the Ch and MSP
B’, Pog’, or Me’ to MSP	The distance between the B’, Pog’, or Me’ to MSP
Anteroposterior distance
Al or Ac to coronal plane	The distance between the Al or Ac and coronal plane
NLF to coronal plane	The distance between the NLF and coronal plane
Ch to coronal plane	The distance between the Ch and coronal plane
Midchin to coronal plane	The distance between the Midchin and coronal plane
Vertical line angulation
Nasal bridge to MSP	The angle between the nasal bridge (N’-Prn) and MSP
Philtrum to MSP	The angle between the philtrum line (Sn-Ls) and MSP
Chin midline to MSP	The angle between the chin midline (Li-Me’) and MSP
Nasolabial fold to MSP	The angle between the nasolabial fold line (Ac-NLF) and MSP
Transverse line angulation
Ch line to FHP	The angle between the Ch line (Ch_NDv-Ch_Dv) and FHP

Me, menton; MSP, midsagittal plane; Go, gonion; Cd, condylion; MF, mental foramen; MHP, mandibular horizontal plane; FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane; UM, maxillary first molar; UC, maxillary canine; LM, mandibular first molar; LC, mandibular canine; Al, nasal ala; Ac, nasal alar curvature; G’, soft tissue glabella; N’, soft tissue nasion; Prn, pronasale; Sn, subnasale; Ls, labrale superius; Li, labrale inferius; Stms, stomion superius; Stmi, stomion inferius; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ch, cheilion; B’, soft tissue B point; Pog’, soft tissue pogonion; Me’, soft tissue menton; NDv, nondeviated side; Dv, deviated side; MnMSP, mandibular midsagittal plane.

For the distance variables of the soft tissue, landmarks were evaluated in the sagittal, vertical, and transverse directions (Figure 4). To perform a reliable comparison of soft and hard tissues, cranium-based reference planes, such as the FHP and MSP, were equally used to measure the soft tissue, skeletal, and dental variables.⁹^,²³ For bilateral landmarks, the difference in the distance between the deviated (Dv) and nondeviated (NDv) sides (ΔNDv−Dv) was calculated. For midline landmarks, a positive value of the distance was set as the landmark positioned at the Dv, and a negative value was set as the landmark positioned at the NDv.

To further investigate the facial soft tissue, new landmarks of the nasolabial fold and chin area, such as NLF, Midchin, and Subchin, were included in this study. To assess the overall patterns of soft tissue deviation, the angulations of the facial midline and transverse line, such as the nasal bridge, philtrum, chin midline, and transverse lip line, were calculated.

To compare soft tissue measurements with underlying skeletal or dental measurements, cranium-based planes, such as the MSP, FHP, and coronal planes, were used as reference planes (Figure 1). In addition, to compare the differences in the soft tissue and skeletal chin deviations between the groups, the ratio of soft tissue (Me’) deviation to hard tissue (Me) deviation was calculated for each group. Correlations between soft tissue and skeletal/dental measurements were calculated to determine the relationship between soft and hard tissue deviations.

All the measurements were performed by a single investigator (HJ Kim). For the reliability test, 10 randomly selected patients were reevaluated by the same investigator after 2 weeks. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.977 (range, 0.957–0.977), and the mean Dahlberg errors were 0.72 mm (range, 0.46–0.86) and 0.71° (range, 0.37–1.07).

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed data normality. A paired t test was used to compare the variables of the sides, and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test was performed to compare the variables of the three groups. Linear-by-linear association was used to compare the sex distribution between the groups, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the relationship between soft tissue and skeletal/dental variables. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05, and SPSS statistical software (version 22; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used.

RESULTS

Comparison of sex distribution, age, and cephalometric measurements between the groups

No significant differences in sex distribution or age were observed between the three mandibular asymmetry groups (Table 3). In terms of the sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns, the patients in this study did not show a significant difference in cephalometric measurements between the groups.

Table 3 . Demographic characteristics and cephalometric measurements of the sample

	Roll	Yaw	Translation	P value
Demographic characteristics
Sex				0.787
Male (n)	19	22	18
Female (n)	11	8	12
Age (yr)	21.60 ± 2.33	21.59 ± 2.17	22.05 ± 3.66
Cephalometric measurements
SNA (°)	80.08 ± 3.04	80.66 ± 2.52	81.57 ± 3.20
SNB (°)	82.34 ± 3.08	84.07 ± 4.52	84.28 ± 3.45
ANB (°)	−2.26 ± 2.03	−3.40 ± 3.20	−2.79 ± 2.60
FMA (°)	27.88 ± 5.03	27.19 ± 5.55	25.28 ± 5.66

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Linear-by-linear association was performed to compare the sex distribution between the groups.

No significant difference was observed between the 3 groups.

SNA, sella-nasion-point A angle; SNB, sella-nasion-point B angle; ANB, point A-nasion-point B angle; FMA, Frankfort-mandibular plane angle.

Comparison of skeletal measurements between the sides and between the groups

Comparison of bilateral measurements between the Dv and NDv revealed that body length and ramus height and inclination were significantly greater at the NDv than those at the Dv (P < 0.05) in each group (Table 4). In addition, the distance between the gonion (Go) and MSP was longer at the Dv than at the NDv (P < 0.001).

Table 4 . Comparison of skeletal measurements between the Dv and NDv and between the three mandibular asymmetry groups

	Roll		Yaw		Translation
	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)
Me deviation (mm)	9.28 ± 3.06^a	-	8.93 ± 3.80^a	-	6.74 ± 2.13^b	-
Body length (mm)
Dv	80.69 ± 5.26	0.002^{^**}	80.33 ± 5.00	< 0.001^{^***}	80.65 ± 5.13	0.023^{^*}
NDv	82.06 ± 5.50		84.87 ± 5.44		82.07 ± 5.16
ΔNDv−Dv	1.37 ± 2.20^a	-	4.54 ± 2.79^b	-	1.42 ± 3.25^a	-
Ramus height (mm)
Dv	65.36 ± 6.32	< 0.001^{^***}	68.86 ± 6.33	< 0.001^{^***}	68.53 ± 7.29	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	73.44 ± 6.35		71.02 ± 5.80		71.41 ± 6.70
ΔNDv−Dv	8.09 ± 3.64^a	-	2.16 ± 2.95^b	-	2.88 ± 2.43^b	-
Ramus inclination (°)
Dv	1.88 ± 2.36^a	< 0.001^{^***}	2.47 ± 2.20^a,b	0.001^{^**}	3.45 ± 2.46^b	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	7.34 ± 2.64^a		4.77 ± 2.99^b		7.57 ± 3.15^a
ΔNDv−Dv	5.46 ± 2.89^a	-	2.30 ± 3.41^b	-	4.11 ± 3.73^a,b	-
MFmid deviation (mm)	7.12 ± 2.70	-	6.91 ± 3.43	-	5.92 ± 2.03	-
Go to MSP (mm)
Dv	50.88 ± 4.64	< 0.001^{^***}	49.35 ± 3.06	< 0.001^{^***}	50.04 ± 3.80	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	43.89 ± 4.11^a		46.48 ± 4.23^b		43.31 ± 3.60^a
ΔNDv−Dv	−7.00 ± 5.14^a	-	−2.87 ± 3.67^b	-	−6.73 ± 4.12^a	-
MHP to FHP (°)	6.18 ± 1.24^a	-	0.87 ± 1.28^b	-	1.62 ± 0.94^c	-
MnMSP to MSP (°)	1.76 ± 1.08^a	-	8.35 ± 3.41^b	-	2.06 ± 0.74^a	-

Dv, deviated side; NDv, nondeviated side; SD, standard deviation; ΔNDv−Dv, difference between the NDv and Dv; Me, menton; MFmid, midpoint of bilateral mental foramen; Go, gonion; MSP, midsagittal plane; MHP, mandibular horizontal plane; FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane; MnMSP, mandibular midsagittal plane; -, not applicable.

Values in the same row with no superscript are not statistically significant, and those with different superscript letters (^a,b,c) are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to a one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test.

Paired t test was performed to compare the Dv and NDv; significant difference at *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 between the Dv and NDv.

Regarding the comparison of the skeletal variables between the groups, the amount of Me deviation was significantly greater in the roll- and yaw-dominant groups (roll, 9.28 mm; yaw, 8.93 mm) than in the translation-dominant group (6.74 mm; P < 0.05). For the bilateral body length difference and angulation between the MnMSP and MSP, the yaw-dominant group presented the highest values (ΔNDv−Dv of body length, 4.54 mm; ∠MnMSP to MSP, 8.35°; P < 0.05) among the three groups. In addition, the bilateral ramus height difference and angulation between the MHP and FHP were significantly higher in the roll-dominant group (ΔNDv−Dv of ramus height, 8.09 mm; ∠MHP to FHP, 6.18°; P < 0.05) than in the other groups. Thus, the roll-dominant group showed higher mandibular rolling asymmetry, and the yaw-dominant group presented higher mandibular yawing asymmetry.

Comparison of dental measurements between the sides and between the groups

As presented in Table 5, all vertical distances of the canine and first molar of both jaws were significantly greater at the NDv than those at the Dv in the three groups (P < 0.001), except for the maxillary canine and first molar of the translation-dominant group.

Table 5 . Comparison of dental measurements between the Dv and NDv and between the three mandibular asymmetry groups

	Roll		Yaw		Translation
	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)
UM to FHP
Dv	49.75 ± 3.83	< 0.001^{^***}	50.18 ± 3.91	< 0.001^{^***}	49.24 ± 3.79	0.170
NDv	51.70 ± 4.03		51.31 ± 3.99		49.62 ± 3.87
ΔNDv−Dv	1.94 ± 1.58^a	-	1.13 ± 1.37^a,b	-	0.38 ± 1.47^b	-
UC to FHP
Dv	55.03 ± 3.75	< 0.001^{^***}	55.29 ± 4.75	< 0.001^{^***}	53.64 ± 4.21	0.060
NDv	56.65 ± 3.96		56.12 ± 4.60		54.12 ± 4.19
ΔNDv−Dv	1.62 ± 1.18^a	-	0.83 ± 1.01^b	-	0.48 ± 1.34^b	-
LM to FHP
Dv	52.22 ± 3.97	< 0.001^{^***}	53.20 ± 4.69	< 0.001^{^***}	52.34 ± 4.39	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	54.68 ± 4.34		54.98 ± 4.58		53.41 ± 4.47
ΔNDv−Dv	2.45 ± 1.15^a	-	1.78 ± 1.30^a,b	-	1.07 ± 1.32^b	-
LC to FHP
Dv	54.60 ± 4.94	< 0.001^{^***}	54.96 ± 5.24	< 0.001^{^***}	53.08 ± 4.47	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	56.67 ± 5.01		56.29 ± 5.11		54.09 ± 4.70
ΔNDv−Dv	2.07 ± 1.39^a	-	1.32 ± 0.95^a,b	-	1.01 ± 1.28^b	-

Dv, deviated side; NDv, nondeviated side; SD, standard deviation; UM, maxillary first molar; FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane; ΔNDv−Dv, difference between the NDv and Dv; UC, maxillary canine; LM, mandibular first molar; LC, mandibular canine; -, not applicable.

Values in the same row with no superscript are not statistically significant, and those with different superscript letters (^a,b,c) are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test.

Paired t test was performed to compare the Dv and NDv; ***significant difference at P < 0.001 between the Dv and NDv.

Bilateral differences in the vertical distance were significantly greater in the roll-dominant group than in the yaw- and/or translation-dominant group (P < 0.05).

Comparison of soft tissue measurements between the sides and between the groups

A comparison of bilateral landmarks between the sides, vertically and transversely, revealed that all variables were significantly different (P < 0.05) except for the vertical distance of the nasal alae (Al) in the translation-dominant group, showing that they were canted-down at the NDv and deviated toward the Dv (Table 6, Figures 5–7). Anteroposteriorly, in the yaw-dominant group, all landmarks at the NDv were located significantly forward than those at the Dv (P < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed in the Midchin. Conversely, the Midchin at Dv was located significantly forward than NDv in the roll- and translation-dominant groups (P < 0.001). In addition, the angulation of the nasolabial fold was significantly greater at the Dv than that at the NDv in all groups (P < 0.001), indicating that the nasolabial fold ran rather horizontally at the Dv and vertically at the NDv.

Figure 5. Schematic illustration of soft tissue deviations or differences in the yaw-dominant group (frontal and modified-submentovertex views; *P < 0.05, significantly greater difference than roll- and/or translation-dominant group).
Al, nasal ala; Ac, nasal alar curvature; Prn, pronasale; Sn, subnasale; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ch, cheilion; Me’, soft tissue menton; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour; Midchin, chin point at the level of midpoint of Ch and Subchin.

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of soft tissue deviations or differences in the roll-dominant group (frontal view; *P < 0.05, significantly greater difference than yaw- and/or translation-dominant group).
Al, nasal ala; Ac, nasal alar curvature; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ch, cheilion; Me’, soft tissue menton; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour.

Figure 7. Schematic illustration of soft tissue deviations or differences in the translation-dominant group (frontal view).
Al, nasal ala; Ac, nasal alar curvature; NLF, nasolabial fold; Ch, cheilion; Me’, soft tissue menton; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour.

Table 6 . Comparison of soft tissue measurements between the Dv and NDv and between the three mandibular asymmetry groups

	Roll		Yaw		Translation
	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)	Mean ± SD	P value (between the sides)
Vertical distance
Nasal alae (Al)
Dv	24.37 ± 2.85	< 0.001^{^***}	24.27 ± 3.00	< 0.001^{^***}	23.35 ± 2.67	0.181
NDv	25.81 ± 2.74		25.04 ± 3.18		24.08 ± 2.55
ΔNDv−Dv	1.44 ± 0.83^a	-	0.77 ± 1.03^b	-	0.73 ± 0.84^b	-
Nasal alar curvature (Ac)
Dv	26.67 ± 2.84	< 0.001^{^***}	26.81 ± 3.02	< 0.001^{^***}	25.77 ± 2.71	0.001^{^**}
NDv	28.15 ± 2.77		27.55 ± 3.28		26.46 ± 2.49
ΔNDv−Dv	1.48 ± 0.96^a	-	0.74 ± 0.90^b	-	0.68 ± 0.97^b	-
Cheilion (Ch)
Dv	56.41 ± 3.78	< 0.001^{^***}	55.94 ± 4.85	< 0.001^{^***}	55.14 ± 4.18	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	59.65 ± 4.19		57.96 ± 5.25		57.21 ± 3.98
ΔNDv−Dv	3.24 ± 1.32^a	-	1.76 ± 1.23^b	-	2.06 ± 0.88^b	-
Subchin
Dv	101.88 ± 6.53	< 0.001^{^***}	102.54 ± 6.60	< 0.001^{^***}	101.58 ± 8.17	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	104.02 ± 6.89		103.65 ± 6.97		102.20 ± 8.10
ΔNDv−Dv	2.13 ± 1.14^a	-	1.10 ± 0.95^b	-	0.62 ± 0.77^b	-
Transverse distance						-
Glabella (G’)	−0.14 ± 1.06	-	0.12 ± 1.16	-	−0.20 ± 1.22
Nasion (N’)	0.06 ± 1.05	-	0.27 ± 1.03	-	0.11 ± 1.06	-
Pronasale (Prn)	0.69 ± 1.54^a	-	1.99 ± 1.72^b	-	0.91 ± 1.48^a	-
Nasal alae (Al)
Dv	19.58 ± 2.02^a	0.037^{^*}	20.86 ± 2.14^b	< 0.001^{^***}	19.71 ± 1.78^a,b	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	18.46 ± 1.90		17.63 ± 2.35		17.93 ± 1.53
ΔNDv−Dv	−1.12 ± 2.81^a	-	−3.23 ± 2.91^b	-	−1.78 ± 2.41^a,b	-
Nasal alar curvature (Ac)
Dv	19.87 ± 1.72	0.006^{^**}	20.82 ± 1.86	< 0.001^{^***}	20.13 ± 1.79	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	18.41 ± 1.78		17.92 ± 2.48		18.13 ± 1.26
ΔNDv−Dv	−1.45 ± 2.71	-	−2.90 ± 2.82	-	−2.00 ± 2.22	-
Nasolabial fold (NLF)
Dv	30.49 ± 3.40	< 0.001^{^***}	31.37 ± 3.58	< 0.001^{^***}	29.98 ± 3.48	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	26.23 ± 3.06		26.31 ± 3.69		25.90 ± 2.90
ΔNDv−Dv	−4.26 ± 3.57	-	−5.06 ± 3.40	-	−4.08 ± 2.53	-
Subnasale (Sn)	1.08 ± 1.43^a	-	2.05 ± 1.72^b	-	1.30 ± 1.16^a,b	-
Labrale superioris (Ls)	1.92 ± 1.54	-	2.97 ± 2.15	-	1.94 ± 1.37	-
Stomion superioris (Stms)	2.56 ± 1.59	-	3.48 ± 2.31	-	2.42 ± 1.41	-
Stomion inferioris (Stmi)	3.34 ± 1.69	-	4.27 ± 2.56	-	3.11 ± 1.71	-
Labrale inferioris (Li)	4.29 ± 1.84	-	5.30 ± 2.98	-	3.99 ± 1.81	-
Cheilion (Ch)
Dv	26.08 ± 2.80^a	< 0.001^{^***}	28.44 ± 3.52^b	< 0.001^{^***}	26.16 ± 2.59^a	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	20.42 ± 2.62		20.30 ± 3.03		20.24 ± 2.49
ΔNDv−Dv	−5.67 ± 4.34	-	−8.15 ± 4.57	-	−5.92 ± 3.43	-
Soft tissue B point (B’)	5.19 ± 2.08	-	5.88 ± 3.12	-	4.43 ± 1.91	-
Soft tissue pogonion (Pog’)	6.86 ± 2.67^a,b	-	7.10 ± 3.50^a	-	5.35 ± 2.13^b	-
Soft tissue menton (Me’)	8.14 ± 3.22^a	-	7.69 ± 3.69^a,b	-	5.94 ± 2.27^b	-
Anteroposterior distance
Nasal alae (Al)
Dv	27.55 ± 4.50	0.205	28.07 ± 3.97	< 0.001^{^***}	28.40 ± 3.88	0.050
NDv	27.97 ± 4.64		29.20 ± 4.22		29.01 ± 4.02
ΔNDv−Dv	0.43 ± 1.81	-	1.13 ± 1.23	-	0.61 ± 1.63	-
Nasal alar curvature (Ac)
Dv	22.10 ± 4.51	0.278	22.59 ± 3.34	< 0.001^{^***}	23.19 ± 3.76	0.113
NDv	22.36 ± 4.77		23.91 ± 3.77		23.60 ± 3.91
ΔNDv−Dv	0.26 ± 1.28^a	-	1.32 ± 1.13^b	-	0.41 ± 1.37^a	-
Nasolabial fold (NLF)
Dv	21.39 ± 5.01	0.057	22.53 ± 3.53	< 0.001^{^***}	23.19 ± 4.08	0.008^{^**}
NDv	21.84 ± 4.84		24.57 ± 4.36		23.80 ± 4.34
ΔNDv−Dv	0.46 ± 1.26^a	-	2.04 ± 1.81^b	-	0.60 ± 1.16^a	-
Cheilion (Ch)
Dv	24.50 ± 5.45	0.120	26.23 ± 4.67	0.001^{^**}	26.97 ± 5.21	0.234
NDv	23.89 ± 5.12^a		27.56 ± 5.12^b		26.66 ± 5.08^a,b
ΔNDv−Dv	−0.62 ± 2.10^a	-	1.33 ± 2.05^b	-	−0.32 ± 1.43^a	-
Midchin
Dv	25.17 ± 6.12^a	< 0.001^{^***}	29.73 ± 7.28^b	0.369	29.96 ± 6.68^b	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	23.55 ± 6.27^a		29.95 ± 7.84^b		28.86 ± 6.53^b
ΔNDv−Dv	−1.63 ± 1.67^a	-	0.22 ± 1.31^b	-	−1.11 ± 1.21^a	-
Angulation
Nasal bridge to MSP	0.79 ± 1.19^a	-	2.10 ± 1.77^b	-	1.16 ± 1.54^a	-
Philtrum to MSP	3.67 ± 2.34	-	3.97 ± 3.50	-	3.12 ± 1.86	-
Ch line to FHP	3.95 ± 1.51^a	-	2.09 ± 1.47^b	-	2.55 ± 1.09^b	-
Chin midline to MSP	4.90 ± 2.71^a	-	3.04 ± 1.85^b	-	2.55 ± 1.41^b	-
Nasolabial fold to MSP
Dv	42.28 ± 7.98	< 0.001^{^***}	43.04 ± 7.05	< 0.001^{^***}	40.55 ± 7.29	< 0.001^{^***}
NDv	36.75 ± 7.38		38.00 ± 6.91		35.37 ± 8.57
ΔNDv−Dv	−5.54 ± 5.38	-	−5.05 ± 4.36	-	−5.17 ± 5.09	-

Dv, deviated side; NDv, nondeviated side; SD, standard deviation; ΔNDv−Dv, difference between the NDv and Dv; Subchin, 15 mm lateral to Me’ on the lower chin contour; Midchin, chin point at the level of midpoint of Ch and Subchin; MSP, midsagittal plane; MHP, mandibular horizontal plane; FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane; -, not applicable.

Values in the same row with no superscript are not statistically significant, and those with different superscript letters (^a,b,c) are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test.

Paired t test was performed to compare the Dv and NDv; significant difference at *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 between the Dv and NDv.

When comparing ΔNDv−Dv of the vertical distance between the groups, the roll-dominant group exhibited significantly greater values than the other groups (P < 0.05), indicating a bigger transverse line cant of the bilateral landmarks. For the ΔNDv−Dv of transverse distance, the yaw-dominant group showed the greatest difference between the sides, although statistical significance was found only at the Al (P = 0.01). Anteroposteriorly, all ΔNDv−Dv values were significantly greater in the yaw-dominant group than in the other groups (P < 0.05), except that of the Al.

Regarding the transverse distance of midline landmarks, the pronasale (Prn) and subnasale of the yaw-dominant group significantly deviated to the Dv more than those of the roll- and translation-dominant groups (P < 0.05).

Regarding the line angulations, the Nasal bridge (N’-Prn) was significantly inclined to the Dv in the yaw-dominant group (2.10°; P < 0.05) compared with that in the other groups (roll, 0.79°; translation, 1.16°). The angulation of the Chin midline and Ch line was significantly greater in the roll-dominant group (Chin midline, 4.90°; Ch line, 3.95°; P < 0.05) than in the yaw- (Chin midline, 3.04°; Ch line, 2.09°) and translation-dominant groups (Chin midline, 2.55°; Ch line, 2.55°). Philtrum angulation was not significantly different between the groups.

Relationship between the soft tissue and skeletal/dental measurements

The ratio of Me’ deviation to the Me deviation was not significantly different between the groups (roll, 0.87; yaw, 0.84; translation, 0.87) (Table 7).

Table 7 . Comparison of the Me’ deviation ratio relative to Me deviation between the three mandibular asymmetry groups

Ratio	Roll	Yaw	Translation
Me’ deviation/Me deviation	0.87 ± 0.14	0.84 ± 0.17	0.87 ± 0.13

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Me’, soft tissue menton; Me, menton.

No significant difference was observed between the 3 groups.

Table 8 shows the correlation between soft tissue line angulation and skeletal/dental measurements. In the roll-dominant group, the angulation of the Chin midline or Ch line was positively correlated with mandibular rolling (∠MHP to FHP; P < 0.01) and Me and MFmid deviations (P < 0.001). In addition, the bilateral difference in the vertical position of the mandibular canine or molar showed a positive correlation with the angulation of the Chin midline (mandibular canine, P < 0.01; mandibular molar, P < 0.05) or Ch line (mandibular canine, P < 0.001; mandibular molar, P < 0.01). In the yaw-dominant group, all soft tissue line angulation variables were positively correlated with Me (Nasal bridge, Philtrum, P < 0.001; Chin midline, Ch line, P < 0.01) and MFmid deviations (Nasal bridge, Chin midline, P < 0.01; Philtrum, Ch line, P < 0.001). Mandibular yawing (∠MnMSP to MSP) was also positively correlated with the Nasal bridge (P < 0.01) and Philtrum angulations (P < 0.001). In the translation-dominant group, the Nasal bridge and Chin midline angulations were positively correlated with Me and MFmid deviations (P < 0.05). Chin midline or Ch line angulation was positively correlated with bilateral differences in the vertical position of the mandibular canine and molar (P < 0.05).

Table 8 . Pearson’s correlation coefficients between line angulation of soft tissue and skeletal/dental measurements

	Roll				Yaw				Translation
	Nasal bridge	Philtrum	Chin midline	Ch line	Nasal bridge	Philtrum	Chin midline	Ch line	Nasal bridge	Philtrum	Chin midline	Ch line
Skeletal
Me deviation	−0.006	0.246	0.791^{^***}	0.728^{^***}	0.574^{^***}	0.727^{^***}	0.560^{^**}	0.547^{^**}	0.405^{^*}	0.321	0.603^{^***}	0.354
MFmid deviation	0.011	0.273	0.751^{^***}	0.709^{^***}	0.599^{^**}	0.696^{^***}	0.582^{^**}	0.612^{^***}	0.426^{^*}	0.289	0.568^{^**}	0.320
∠MHP to FHP	−0.068	0.241	0.554^{^**}	0.655^{^***}	−0.201	0.143	0.318	0.290	−0.136	0.072	0.282	0.284
∠MnMSP to MSP	−0.001	0.242	0.239	0.325	0.525^{^**}	0.684^{^***}	0.226	0.013	0.200	0.113	0.145	0.177
Dental (ΔNDv–Dv)
UM to FHP	0.238	−0.074	0.015	0.226	0.168	−0.242	0.230	0.290	0.257	−0.093	0.099	0.031
UC to FHP	0.068	0.281	−0.087	0.115	0.195	−0.064	< 0.001	0.160	0.491^{^**}	−0.052	0.092	0.166
LM to FHP	0.124	−0.040	0.431^{^*}	0.521^{^**}	0.309	−0.128	0.136	0.390^{^*}	0.355	0.184	0.449^{^*}	0.412^{^*}
LC to FHP	−0.035	0.145	0.527^{^**}	0.632^{^***}	0.121	0.075	0.291	0.365	0.283	−0.113	0.410^{^*}	0.381^{^*}

Ch, cheilion; Me, menton; MFmid, midpoint of bilateral mental foramen; MSP, midsagittal plane; MHP, mandibular horizontal plane; FHP, Frankfort horizontal plane; MnMSP, mandibular midsagittal plane; ΔNDv−Dv, difference between the nondeviated and deviated sides; UM, maxillary first molar; UC, maxillary canine; LM, mandibular first molar; LC, mandibular canine.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

DISCUSSION

To define the distinct manifestations of facial soft tissues based on each mandibular asymmetry type, the soft tissue variables were compared between the different asymmetry types. In accordance with earlier studies that mentioned that internal skeletal asymmetry was rather masked by the soft tissue,⁹^,²⁴ the Me’/Me deviation ratio was 0.84 to 0.87 in this study. Interestingly, the ratio was not significantly different between the asymmetry types, indicating that the internal Me deviation was masked by the soft tissue at a uniform rate, irrespective of the roll-, yaw-, or translation-dominant mandibular deviation. The other soft tissue positions assessed in three dimensions, however, were quite different according to the mandibular asymmetry type.

The roll-dominant group demonstrated greater vertical differences in the bilateral landmarks of the soft tissue than the other groups (Figures 5 and 8). Notably, the transverse lip cant was more prominent than the other groups, and the value was highly related to Me deviation as suggested in previous studies.¹⁰^,¹⁹ Interestingly, in this study, the lip cant also presented a high correlation with mandibular rolling. This might be related to the depressor anguli oris muscle that is highly associated with the vertical position of the lip corner and is attached to the side of the mandibular body.²⁵ Once the mandible rolled, the muscle might be positioned more inferior at the NDv than at the Dv, which possibly canted down the lip corner at the NDv. Hence, to correct lip line canting, the Me should be surgically moved toward the NDv sufficiently to position itself on the MSP along with sufficient mandibular rolling correction. Importantly, the transverse occlusal cant of both jaws should be completely corrected in advance to accomplish sufficient mandibular rolling. Regarding soft tissue asymmetry of the chin, the vertical position of the Subchin at the NDv was more inferior than that of the Dv, indicating that the lower chin contour of the NDv was canted down, and the angulation of the Chin midline was positively correlated with mandibular rolling. To achieve bilaterally balanced soft tissues in the chin of the roll-dominant asymmetric mandible, the mandibular rolling correction along with the lateral movement to the NDv could be emphasized repeatedly. If a certain amount of asymmetry remains after mandibular surgery even with proper rolling and positional correction, supplementary osteotomy on the inferior border of the body can be considered.²⁶^,²⁷ Accordingly, in patients with facial asymmetry presenting with moderate-to-severe lip cant and side-to-side discrepancy of the soft tissue around the nose and chin in the vertical direction, treatment would need to focus on mandibular rolling to deal with these soft tissue deviations.

Figure 8. Color maps showing the soft tissue differences in distance between the original and mirrored images based on the midsagittal plane for each mandibular asymmetry type. The color maps were constructed using three-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA). When original soft tissues were positioned out of or lateral to the mirrored images, yellow to red colors were mapped based on the distance, and pale blue to blue colors were mapped for the mirrored images relative to the original images. Line angulations that presented a significant correlation with menton (Me) deviation (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001).
Ch, cheilion.

Meanwhile, for bilateral soft tissue comparison in the yaw-dominant group, the vertical difference was lower than that in the roll-dominant group. However, the lateral deviation of the nose and lips was the greatest among the three asymmetry groups (Figures 6 and 8). In addition, the extent of mandibular yawing positively correlated with the angulations of the Nasal bridge and Philtrum. This may be attributed to the horizontally-deviated anterior body of the yaw-dominant asymmetric mandible. Previous studies revealed that a deviated nasal septum was more closely associated with the horizontal growth difference than with the vertical difference.²⁸^,²⁹ In addition, some previous studies highlighted that nasal asymmetry correction is more important for facial esthetics than chin asymmetry.³⁰^,³¹ Therefore, nasal deviation should be detected with attention, particularly in patients with yaw-dominant mandibular asymmetry. If required, rhinoplasty needs to be considered during or after jaw surgery to enhance the symmetry of the face.³²^,³³ For the anteroposterior positions, the nasal- and lip-related landmarks at the NDv are located more anteriorly than those at the Dv. This bilateral discrepancy in facial frontal projection might be due to the mandibular yaw rotation that can lead to anteroposterior positional differences between the sides.¹⁵ Therefore, to improve this asymmetry, mandibular yaw correction, including more setback movement at the NDv and less setback or advancement at the Dv, would be required during skeletal Class III jaw surgery. Particularly, this frontal projection difference at the nasal-related soft tissue landmarks may be related to nasal deviation;²⁷ thus, subalar grafting on the depressed Dv can be considered after jaw surgery for better symmetry of the facial projection and nasal axis.¹²^,³⁴ In clinics, facial photographs of the modified submentovertex view at 45° may also be useful for evaluating the bilateral differences in the soft tissue projection (Figures 6 and 8). Therefore, if significant lateral deviations of the nasal- and lip-related soft tissues and bilateral differences in facial projection are observed, sufficient yaw correction of the mandible might be required in treatment planning. Thereafter, supplementary graft surgery would be considered if needed. Transverse lip cant in this group was highly correlated with Me and body deviation to the MSP, but not with mandibular yawing; thus, sufficient lateral body movement to the NDv would be required for a balanced lip line.

Patients with translation-dominant mandibular asymmetry showed differences in the vertical and transverse directions between the bilateral landmarks (Figures 7 and 8). Despite the lower Me or Me’ deviation, the translation-dominant group presented a similar or not significantly lesser transverse deviation of landmarks around the lips (Ls, Li, Stms, Stmi, and B’) compared with the other groups. Hence, lateral translation of the mandible to the Dv, might contribute to lip deviation. To fully improve the deviated soft tissues, the mandible should be moved to the NDv by bodily translation along with the lateral movement of the Go during jaw surgery.

Collectively, facial soft tissues showed different deviation patterns according to the mandibular asymmetry types. Even though the amount of hard-tissue menton deviations did not differ according to the types in this study, the facial soft tissues were quite different. Therefore, the orthognathic surgical plan, including orthodontic decompensation, should differ according to type. The roll-dominant group was closely associated with the vertical difference between the sides, and the amount of mandibular rolling presented a positive correlation with transverse lip cant. Thus, proper correction of mandibular rolling is imperative in jaw surgery accompanied by appropriate dental decompensation. By contrast, the yaw-dominant group demonstrated a large extent of soft tissue deviation, both transversely and anteroposteriorly. In particular, the extent of mandibular yawing was highly correlated with nasal and philtrum asymmetries. Therefore, sufficient lateral movement of the mandible with yaw correction is mandatory, and rhinoplasty should be considered in treatment planning. From a clinical viewpoint, the surgical plan needs to differ according to mandibular asymmetry type, although the soft tissue menton deviation is the same. The relationship between soft and hard tissue deviations evaluated in this study may be useful in establishing guidelines for appropriate tooth and jaw movements to accomplish satisfactory facial esthetics.

Although this study successfully assessed soft tissue deviations in each mandibular asymmetry type, the soft tissue changes related to hard tissue movements by treatment were not evaluated. Therefore, further investigation is needed to determine the differences in soft tissue changes after treatment between different asymmetry types.

CONCLUSIONS

The null hypothesis of this study was rejected.

Facial soft tissue deviations were differently demonstrated for each mandibular asymmetry type in Class III patients. Roll-dominant asymmetry predominantly exhibited vertical differences between sides, whereas yaw-dominant asymmetry was closely related to transverse and anteroposterior deviations. A complete understanding of soft tissue deviation in each mandibular asymmetry type would be valuable for achieving an esthetic and symmetrical face.

FUNDING

None to declare.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: HSP, HJK. Data curation: HJK, HKN. Formal analysis: HJK, HKN. Investigation: HJK, HKN. Methodology: HKN, HSP. Project administration: HSP. Supervision: HSP. Validation: HJK. Writing–original draft: HJK. Writing–review & editing: HJK, HKN, HSP.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

Hwang DS, Kim YI, Park SB, Lee JY. Midfacial soft tissue changes after leveling Le Fort I osteotomy with differential reduction. Cone-beam computed tomography volume superimposition. Angle Orthod 2012;82:424-31. https://doi.org/10.2319/052411-342.1
Haraguchi S, Takada K, Yasuda Y. Facial asymmetry in subjects with skeletal Class III deformity. Angle Orthod 2002;72:28-35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11843270/
Lee ST, Mori Y, Minami K, An CH, Park JW, Kwon TG. Does skeletal surgery for asymmetric mandibular prognathism influence the soft tissue contour and thickness?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:1577-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.04.008
Nur RB, Çakan DG, Arun T. Evaluation of facial hard and soft tissue asymmetry using cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:225-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.038
Yamamoto S, Miyachi H, Fujii H, Ochiai S, Watanabe S, Shimozato K. Intuitive facial imaging method for evaluation of postoperative swelling: a combination of 3-dimensional computed tomography and laser surface scanning in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74:2506.e1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.08.039
Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997;12:171-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9511487/
Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Freitas MPM, Oliver DR, Kim KB. Mandibular asymmetries and associated factors in orthodontic and orthognathic surgery patients. Angle Orthod 2018;88:545-51. https://doi.org/10.2319/111517-785.1
Chew MT. Spectrum and management of dentofacial deformities in a multiethnic Asian population. Angle Orthod 2006;76:806-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17029514/
Kim WS, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Comparison of asymmetric degree between maxillofacial hard and soft tissue in facial asymmetric subjects using three-dimensional computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2005;35:163-73. https://e-kjo.org/journal/view.html?volume=35&number=3&spage=163
Hwang HS, Min YS, Lee SC, Sun MK, Lim HS. Change of lip-line cant after 1-jaw orthognathic surgery in patients with mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:564-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.060
Kim SJ, Choi JY, Baek SH. Evaluation of canting correction of the maxillary transverse occlusal plane and change of the lip canting in Class III two-jaw orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1092-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/011512-36.1
Yao F, Lawson W, Westreich RW. Effect of midfacial asymmetry on nasal axis deviation: indications for use of the subalar graft. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009;11:157-64. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2009.1
Kim JY, Jung HD, Jung YS, Hwang CJ, Park HS. A simple classification of facial asymmetry by TML system. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.019
Tyan S, Park HS, Janchivdorj M, Han SH, Kim SJ, Ahn HW. Three-dimensional analysis of molar compensation in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 2016;86:421-30. https://doi.org/10.2319/030915-142.1
Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM, Ackerman MB, Kean MR. Pitch, roll, and yaw: describing the spatial orientation of dentofacial traits. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:305-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.032
Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang ZC, Lai HH, Lu SC, Kok SH. A new classification of mandibular asymmetry and evaluation of surgical-orthodontic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:676-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.03.011
Baek C, Paeng JY, Lee JS, Hong J. Morphologic evaluation and classification of facial asymmetry using 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:1161-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.135
Cho JH, Kim EJ, Kim BC, Cho KH, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Correlations of frontal lip-line canting with craniofacial morphology and muscular activity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:278.e7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.015
Suzuki-Okamura E, Higashihori N, Kawamoto T, Moriyama K. Three-dimensional analysis of hard and soft tissue changes in patients with facial asymmetry undergoing 2-jaw surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;120:299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.05.020
Lo LJ, Weng JL, Ho CT, Lin HH. Three-dimensional region-based study on the relationship between soft and hard tissue changes after orthognathic surgery in patients with prognathism. PLoS One 2018;13:e0200589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200589
Kim HJ, Noh HK, Park HS. Use of a novel body mandibular plane (mental foramen-protuberance menti) in analyzing mandibular asymmetry compared with conventional border mandibular plane. Angle Orthod 2023;93:195-204. https://doi.org/10.2319/072522-513.1
Kim HJ, Noh HK, Park HS. Mandibular asymmetry types and differences in dental compensations of Class III patients analyzed with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2023. [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.2319/013023-73.1
Baek ES, Hwang S, Choi YJ, Roh MR, Nguyen T, Kim KH, et al. Quantitative and perceived visual changes of the nasolabial fold following orthodontic retraction of lip protrusion. Angle Orthod 2018;88:465-73. https://doi.org/10.2319/100317-665.1
Shah SM, Joshi MR. An assessment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod 1978;48:141-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/277077/
Kim YH, Jeon J, Rhee JT, Hong J. Change of lip cant after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1106-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.030
Kim CH, Lee JH, Cho JY, Lee JH, Kim KW. Skeletal stability after simultaneous mandibular angle resection and sagittal split ramus osteotomy for correction of mandible prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:192-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.064
Xiao Y, Sun X, Wang L, Zhang Y, Chen K, Wu G. The application of 3D printing technology for simultaneous orthognathic surgery and mandibular contour osteoplasty in the treatment of craniofacial deformities. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017;41:1413-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0914-z
Kim YM, Rha KS, Weissman JD, Hwang PH, Most SP. Correlation of asymmetric facial growth with deviated nasal septum. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1144-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21785
D'Ascanio L, Lancione C, Pompa G, Rebuffini E, Mansi N, Manzini M. Craniofacial growth in children with nasal septum deviation: a cephalometric comparative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1180-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.010
Meyer-Marcotty P, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Bareis U, Hartmann J, Kochel J. Three-dimensional perception of facial asymmetry. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:647-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq146
Shin YM, Lee ST, Nam KY, Kwon TG. Nasal deviation in patients with asymmetric mandibular prognathism. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:e700-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003894
Waite PD, Matukas VJ. Indications for simultaneous orthognathic and septorhinoplastic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:133-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(91)90099-8
Raffaini M, Cocconi R, Spinelli G, Agostini T. Simultaneous rhinoseptoplasty and orthognathic surgery: outcome analysis of 250 consecutive patients using a modified Le Fort I osteotomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018;42:1090-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1121-2
Kwon TG, Kang SM, Hwang HD. Three-dimensional soft tissue change after paranasal augmentation with porous polyethylene. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:816-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.004

Article

Original Article

Korean J Orthod 2023; 53(6): 402-419 https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod23.106

First Published Date September 7, 2023, Publication Date November 25, 2023

Differences in facial soft tissue deviations in Class III patients with different types of mandibular asymmetry: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Ho-Jin Kim , Hyung-Kyu Noh, Hyo-Sang Park

Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

Received: May 11, 2023; Revised: August 25, 2023; Accepted: September 4, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.