Method: A sample of 80 individuals with three-dimensional facial images at rest and during speech were recorded. Subjects were asked to pronounce four bilabial words in a relaxed manner and scanned using the 3dMDFace™ Dynamic System at 48 frames per second. Six lip landmarks were identified at rest and the landmark displacement vectors for the frame of maximal lip movement for all six visemes were recorded. Principal component analysis was applied to isolate relationship between lip traits and their registered coordinates. Eight specific resting morphological lip traits were identified for each individual. The principal component (PC) scores for each viseme were labelled by lip morphological trait and were graphically visualized as ellipses to discriminate any differences in lip movement.
Results: The first five PCs accounted for up to 95% of the total variance in lip shape during movement, with PC1 accounting for at least 38%. There was no clear discrimination between PC1, PC2 and PC3 for any of the resting morphological lip traits.
Conclusion: Lip shapes during movement are more uniform between individuals and resting morphological lip shape does not influence movement of the lips.
METHODS: Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane's Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020216684.
Materials and Methods: We have adopted search criteria using keywords: Botox, Botulinum toxin, incobotulinumtoxinA, esthetics, face, uses of Botox, with various Boolean operators and or in title, and abstract using PubMed search engine. The database search limited to PubMed only from January 2013 to June 2018.
Results: Various search results have been appended as annexures at the end of the article for further reference for the readers. Finally, 17 references were selected to write narrative review to meet our objectives.
Conclusion: The advancing front in the use of toxins is an emerging science for the beautification of a face. Botox exploded in to market because of efficacy, tolerability, and minimally invasive nature. The present review gives brief about the history of Botulinum toxin, types, mechanism of action, clinical indications, preparations, storage, and technique for various uses with a brief note on patient selection, contraindications, and complications.