Lip profile changes

Abstract

I read with great interest the recent article by Mishra et al regarding lip profile changes after extraction treatment (Mishra D, Natarajan M, Urala AS. Lip profile changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns treated with maxillary premolar extractions: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:684-93). Esthetically pleasing outcomes are a desire for all those seeking orthodontic treatment, and this article provides valuable information concerning the esthetics of the lower third of the facial profile. We appreciate the authors’ work; however, we were left with a few questions. The authors mention in the Discussion section that “The present study found an increase in MP-SN angle and reduction of facial height ratio in group 3 (intermediate group) followed by group 4 (high angle)….” But the data in Table II suggest a slight increase in facial height percentage for Class II Division 1 patients. In addition, to compare the reduction in groups 3 and 4, there were no data related to pretreatment values. In addition, under the Discussion section, the authors mention that soft tissue changes were similar to patients with skeletal Class I relationship, but the values in Table III for E_UL, E_LL, LL_H, and Sn_H show much difference. Is there a statistical error? The discussion of the H angle states that there was no statistical difference between group 4 and group 1, but this does not coincide with the values given in Table III of H angle; the P value has a significant difference. There is mention of ‘statistically significant decrease in basic lower lip thickness’ in the Discussion section. But what caused this change since there was a minimal effect on point B or mandibular incisors. In the subsequent paragraphs, the authors state that “Furthermore, it contributed to the increase in lower lip thickness…” What is the basis of this finding? Data in Figure 5 and Table II suggest a decrease in lower lip thickness. Finally, in the Conclusion section, the fifth point is: “After maxillary incisor retraction in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion, the changes in soft tissues profile were similar to patients with a skeletal Class I relationship.” Although this study compared lip profile between the 2 groups (Class I and Class II Division 1), what other parameters were analyzed to bring about the conclusion? We look forward to a response from the authors to help us better interpret the results of the study. Lip profile changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns treated with maxillary premolar extractions: A pilot studyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 158Issue 5PreviewThis retrospective pilot study assessed the pre- and posttreatment lip profile changes among adult patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns and compared these changes with patients with a skeletal Class I relationship, to identify the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue cephalometric variables that altered the posttreatment lip profile. Full-Text PDF Authors’ responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 159Issue 5PreviewThank you for the opportunity to reply to these queries. Full-Text PDF