International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE S1 ( Special Issue (Pediatr Orthodont), 2021 ) > List of Articles


FSA Angle: A Soft Tissue Approach for Assessing Sagittal Skeletal Discrepancy

Keywords : Anteroposterior relation, Cephalometric study, Malocclusion, Orthodontics, Soft tissue

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2017

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-12-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Introduction: Lateral cephalograms are taken as a diagnostic aid for the evaluation of the anteroposterior relationships. The assessment of anteroposterior soft tissue relationships is by using skeletal points and cranial reference planes. The anteroposterior relationships are, however, clinically affected by soft tissue structures. In this pilot study, we aim to assess the anteroposterior relationships based on soft tissue landmarks. Materials and methods: Lateral cephalograms were collected from 100 patients and evaluated on Facad software. The subject consisted of a mean age of 20 ± 7 years. Fifty-four cephalograms selected were used to perform the analysis. A new angle FSA was measured based on soft tissue landmarks. A new plane used for this analysis is the SA plane. Using this angle, we classified the cephalograms as class I, II, and III. Results: There is a statistically significant value to differentiate the profile of patients using the FSA angle. Thus, this new angle is created to determine the anteroposterior soft tissue relationship using soft tissue landmarks on a cephalometric analysis and from our data, the value was 81 ± 7.57° for class 1 patients that is consistent with the previous studies which evaluate sagittal skeletal relationships. Conclusion: There are various difficulties and errors in the previous analysis that is used to determine the anteroposterior jaw relations. Skeletal landmarks have been used previously and most of these points are not stable points. Thus, this new analysis that will be using soft tissue landmarks can be used to differentiate in the various profiles of patients with different malocclusions.

  1. Ishikawa H, Nakamura S, Iwasaki H, et al. Seven parameters describing anteroposterior jaw relationships: postpubertal prediction accuracy and interchangeability. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;117(6):714–720. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70181-8.
  2. Jacobson A. The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67(2):125–138. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2.
  3. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39(10):729–755. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7.
  4. McNamara JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984;86(6):449–469. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(84)90352-x.
  5. Chang H-P. Assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92(2):117–122. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90366-0.
  6. Kim YH, Vietas JJ. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1978;73(6):619–633. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90223-3.
  7. Worms FW, Isaacson RJ, Michael Speidel T. Surgical orthodontic treatment planning: profile analysis and mandibular surgery. Angle Orthod 1976;46(1):1–25. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1976)0462.0.CO;2.
  8. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 1999;2(2):49–52. Wiley Online Library [Internet]. Available from:
  9. Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(6):674–684. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70228-8.
  10. Freeman RS. A radiographic method of analysis of the relation of the structures of the lower face to each other and to the occlusal plane of the teeth [M.S.D. thesis]. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University; 1950.
  11. Haynes S, Chau MNY. The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;107(6):640–647. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70108-7.
  12. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancies: the beta angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(1):100–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026.
  13. Felicita AS, Chandrasekar S, Shanthasundari KK. Determination of craniofacial relation among the subethnic Indian population: a modified approach - (sagittal relation). Indian J Dent Res 2012;23(3):305. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.102210.
  14. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod 1997;67(5):327–336. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)0672.3.CO;2.
  15. Ackerman JL, Ackerman MB, Brensinger CM, et al. A morphometric analysis of the posed smile. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1(1):2–11. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.1998.1.1.2.
  16. Judy DL, Farman AG, Silveira AM, et al. Longitudinal predictability of AF-BF value in angle class I patients. Angle Orthod 1995;65(5):359–366. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)0652.0.CO;2.
  17. Downs WB. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 1956;26(4):191–212.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.