A cephalometric investigation of horizontal lip position in adult Nigerians

References

• Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 373–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holdaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning: Part 1. Am J Orthod 1983; 84: 1–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM, Erbay SK. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults. Part 1: Evaluation of Horizontal lip position using different soft tissue analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 57–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 721–35.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957; 27: 14–37.
   Google Scholar
• Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning Am J Orthod 1976; 53: 262–84.
   Google Scholar
• Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial aesthetics. Am J Orthod 1966; 52: 804–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusion and well balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 72–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond RA. A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 152–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fonseca RJ, Klein WD. A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 152–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cotton WN, Takano WS, Wong W. The Downs analysis applied to three other ethnic groups. Angle Orthod 1951; 21: 213–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altemus LA. Comparative integumental relationships. Angle Orthod 1963; 33: 217–21.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson ER. Racial differences in dimensional traits of the human face. Angle Orthod 1980; 50: 301–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapila S. Selected cephalometric angular norms in Kikuyu children. Angle Orthod 989; 59: 139–44.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson A. The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 152–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bacon W, Girandin P, Turlot JC. A comparison of cephalometric norms for the African Bantu and a Caucasoid population. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5: 233–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naidoo LC, Miles LP. An evaluation of the mean cephalometric values for orthognathic surgery for black South African adults. Part II: Soft tissue. J Dent Assoc S Africa 1997; 52: 545–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooke MS, Wei SH. Cephalometric ‘standards’ for the Southern Chinese. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10: 264–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uesato G, Kinoshta Z, Kawamoto T, Koyama I, Nakanishi Y. Steiner cephalometric norms for Japanese and Japanese Americans. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 321–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T, Murata S, Izuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 431–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park IC, Bowman D, Klapper LA. Cephalometric study of Korean adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 54–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nanda R, Nanda RS. Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of North Indians. Angle Orthod 1969; 39: 22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalhoub SY, Sahran OA, Shaikh HS. Adult cephalometric norms for Saudi Arabians with a comparison of values for Saudi and North American Caucasians. Br J Orthod 1987; 14: 273–79.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Massermith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 146–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerci V, Martins JE, de Oliveira MA. Cephalometric standards for White Brazillians. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg 1993; 8: 287–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evanko AM, Freeman K, Cisneros GJ. Mesh Diagram analysis: developing a norm for Puerto Rican Americans. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 381–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkman A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 366–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TR, Ambrogio RI, Zeichner SJ. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in blacks American adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 47: 30–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 50: 1184–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcalde RE, Jinno T, Orsini MG, Sasaki A, Sugiyama RA, Matsumura T. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 84–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Gunaid T, Yamada K, Yamaki M, Saito I. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Yemeni men. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 7–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isiekwe MC, Sowemimo GO. Cephalometric findings in a normal Nigerian population sample and adult Nigerians with unrepaired clefts. Cleft Palate J 1984; 21: 323–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Isiekwe MC. A distribution of antero-posterior skeletal jaw relationships in a Nigerian population. Afr Dent J 1987; 1: 23–7.
   Google Scholar
• Isiekwe MC. A cephalometric study of incisor angulations in a Nigerian population Br J Orthod 1989; 16: 177–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durosinmi-Etti TF. Cephalometric values of schoolchildren in Lagos 12–14 years. Dissertation, West African College of Surgeons, Lagos, Nigeria, 1992..
   Google Scholar
• Ajayi CO. Cephalometric norms for Nigerian children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128: 653–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: Allen and Unwin, 1940, 122–32..
   Google Scholar
• Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2009; 38: 262–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure SR, Sadowsky PL, Ferreira A, Jacobson A. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 98–110.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TR, Ambrogio RI, Zeichner SJ. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in blacks American adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 47: 30–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara JAJr, Brust EW, Riolo ML. Soft tissue evaluation of individuals with an ideal occlusion and a well balanced face. In JA McNamara (ed.) Esthetics and the treatment of facial form. Craniofacial growth series Vol. 28. Ann Arbor, MI: Centre for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, 1993; 115–46.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu BS. Comparison of the 5 analytic lines of the horizontal lip position, their consistency and sensitivity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104: 355–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitas LM, Freitas KM, Pinzan A, Janson G, Freitas MR. A comparison of skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue characteristics in white and black Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 135–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 505–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Proffit WR, Fields HWJr. Contemporary Orthodontics, 3rd Edn.St Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby, 2000; 176.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke MS, Wei SH. The reproducibility of natural head posture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 280–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spradley FL, Jacobs J, Crowe DP. Assessment of the anteroposterior soft tissue contour of the lower facial third in the ideal young adult. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 316–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundstorm A, Lundstorm F. Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 40: 244–47.
   Google Scholar
• Viazis AD. A Cephalometric analysis based on natural head position. J Clin Orthod 1991; 31: 72–81.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstorm A, Lundstorm F. The Frankfort horizontal as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 537–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1981; 3: 15–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Br J Orthod 1988; 15: 105–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jackson PH, Dickson GC, Brinie DJ. Digital image processing of cephalometric radiographs: a preliminary report. Br J Orthod 1985; 12: 122–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geelen W, Wenzel A, Golfretsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy and monitor displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 331–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamoen A, Dormant L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 569–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar