title: New diagnostic tenet of the esthetic midface for clinical assessment of anterior malar projection.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether a visual classification of anterior malar support using vector relationships is supported by cephalometric analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty white subjects between the ages of 10 and 12 years, without craniofacial syndromes or previous orthodontic treatment, were equally divided into groups based on visual assessment of negative and positive vector relationships. Group A comprised 20 subjects (10 male, 10 female) exhibiting a positive vector relationship. Group B comprised 20 subjects (10 male, 10 female) displaying a negative vector relationship. Sella-nasion-orbitale (SNO) angulations were measured to evaluate the subjects' anteroposterior position of the malar eminence relative to the cranial base. Gender differences and significant differences in SNO measurements between groups A and B were assessed with Mann-Whitney U-tests.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was no statistically significant difference between genders. SNO angulations in the negative vector group were smaller than the positive vector controls by an average of 6.0 degrees, and the difference was highly significant (P < .0001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Compared with subjects exhibiting a positive vector relationship, individuals displaying a negative vector relationship had significantly reduced malar support. Anterior malar projection can be effectively classified through visual assessment of vector relationships.
authors: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Colorado University, Aurora, Colo 80045, USA. stfrey@gmail.com
authors: Scott T
authors: ST
authors: Frey
mesh_terms: D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods*; D002648:Child; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D005145:Face / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012016:Reference Values; D012737:Sex Factors; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D015050:Zygoma / Q000033:anatomy & histology*
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996 Apr;97(4):700-6
references: 8628763
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971 Nov;48(5):419-42
references: 4942075
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Dec;140(6):790-8
references: 22133943
references: J Oral Surg. 1977 Jan;35(1):21-4
references: 264253
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 May;103(5):395-411
references: 8480709
references: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005 May-Jun;29(3):141-7; discussion 148
references: 15959686
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Sep;116(3):239-53
references: 10474095
references: Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):111-27
references: 5283996
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Aug;106(2):479-88; discussion 489-90
references: 10946949
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 May;107(6):1585-92; discussion 1593-5
references: 11335841
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Apr;103(4):299-312
references: 8480695
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):577-81
references: 21055597
references: Clin Plast Surg. 1991 Jan;18(1):183-95
references: 2015744
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Mar;121(3):244-56
references: 11941338
references: Am J Orthod. 1972 Mar;61(3):221-30
references: 4501181