Table 5 Summary of different reported populations
From: Sagittal lip positions in different skeletal malocclusions: a cephalometric analysis
Study | Sample population | Age in years | Sample size | Sample selection | Soft tissue analysis | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | Nigerian population | 18 to 25 | 100 | Class I molar and canine relationship, a symmetrical face | Steiner, Rickets, Burstone, Merrifield and Holdway | More protrusive upper and lower lip as compared to normative values reported for Caucasians |
2002 | Kwangju sample (Korean population) | 18 to 20 | 60 | Normal occlusion, class I molar and canine relationship | Steiner, Rickets, Merrifield and Holdway | Greater degree of lip protrusion in comparison to European-American samples |
2004 | Singapore Chinese children | Mean 12.5 girls, 12.7 boys | 81 | Class incisor relationship (British standards institute, 1983) | Rickets E line | Boys had more protrusive lips than Malaysian Chinese and less protrusive lips than Hong Kong Chinese |
1992 | Chinese adult | 18 to 24 | 72 | Harmonious facial profiles with presence of intact dentition, no difference was made between orthodontic treated and non-treated subjects | Legan and Burstone analysis, Holdway analysis | Upper and lower lip not in balance with H line, upper and lower lip were positioned more anteriorly |
1972 | Males of Kwangtung province origin (Cantonese Chinese) | 18 to 33 | 30 | Clinically excellent occlusion, class I molar, pleasing profile | E line and B line | Lips protruded beyond E line |
2013 | Bangladeshi population | 23.2 to 14.6 | 98 | Class I occlusion | B line | Females had more protrude lips compared to Caucasians and less protruded lips than Japanese, males no significant difference between Caucasian and Japanese |