The Role of Lip Growth in Orthodontic Treatment Planning: Insights for Orthodontic Students

Understanding the growth patterns of the maxillary and mandibular lips is essential for effective orthodontic treatment planning. As orthodontic students, recognizing the interplay between facial soft tissues and the underlying hard tissues, particularly during the critical growth period from 8 to 18 years, can significantly influence treatment outcomes. This blog post delves into a lip growth and its implications for orthodontic therapy, providing data-driven insights and clinical guidelines.

Key Findings on Lip Growth

1. Maxillary Lip Length

Maxillary Lip Length Growth (mm)Age 8Age 18Percentage IncreaseLargest growth occurred between 
Males17.7321.5321.43%Ages 10 and 16.
Females17.7319.8812.11%Ages 10 and 14.

2. Maxillary Lip Thickness

Maxillary Lip Thickness Growth (mm)Age 8Age 18Percentage Increase
Males10.7715.7646.33%Growth was continuous, with the largest increase between ages 12 and 16.
Females10.9012.5014.68%Growth occurred primarily between ages 10 and 14.

3. Mandibular Lip Length

Mandibular Lip Length Growth (mm)Age 8Age 18Percentage Increase
Males19.1426.5338.56%Largest increase occurred between ages 12 and 16.
Females19.1422.7318.65%Growth occurred primarily between ages 10 and 16.

4. Mandibular Lip Thickness

  • Males: Increased steadily from ages 8 to 16, with a plateau between ages 16 and 18.
    • Largest increases occurred between ages 14 and 16.
  • Females: Growth was less pronounced, with significant increases only between ages 10 and 14.

Clinical Implications for Orthodontic Treatment

1. Sexual Dimorphism in Lip Growth

  • Males experience greater increases in both lip length and thickness compared to females.
  • Females show more limited growth, particularly in lip thickness during puberty.

2. Extraction Therapy Considerations

  • Female Patients: Limited lip thickening during puberty makes the effects of extraction therapy more noticeable, especially in patients with straight or concave profiles. Treatment plans should be approached with caution to avoid adverse effects on facial esthetics.
  • Male Patients: Greater lip thickening provides more flexibility for extractions without significantly impacting facial profile fullness.

Maxillary Lip Thickness Growth Rates

  • Males:
    • 0.5 mm/year (ages 8–12).
    • 0.7 mm/year (ages 12–16).
  • Females:
    • 0.5 mm/year (ages 10–12).
    • 0.3 mm/year (ages 12–14).

Conclusion

Understanding the growth patterns of maxillary and mandibular lips is essential for predicting soft-tissue responses and planning effective orthodontic treatments. Sexual dimorphism plays a significant role, with males experiencing greater growth in both lip length and thickness compared to females. These differences must be factored into treatment decisions, particularly for extraction therapy, to ensure optimal esthetic and functional outcomes. As orthodontic students, incorporating these insights into clinical practice will enhance your ability to deliver patient-centered care.

Bimaxillary Protrusion: Incisor + Lip Retraction and Nasolabial Angle

Bimaxillary protrusion is a common orthodontic condition marked by protrusive and proclined upper and lower incisors, coupled with increased lip prominence. While predominantly seen in African American and Asian populations, it is not limited to any single ethnic group. This condition often leads patients to seek orthodontic treatment due to the aesthetic concerns of protruding lips and dentition.

Soft Tissue and Hard Tissue Correlation

Orthodontic studies present two conflicting perspectives on the relationship between incisor retraction and lip position:

  1. Strong Correlation: Some studies demonstrate a direct relationship between incisor and lip retraction.
  2. Weak Correlation: Some studies suggest that soft tissue changes do not proportionally mirror dental movements due to variables like growth, lip tonicity, and anchorage.

Four retrospective studies on bimaxillary protrusion treatment provided valuable insights:

Study FindingsUpper Lip Retraction (mm)Lower Lip Retraction (mm)Nasolabial Angle Increase (°)
Caplan et al. (2009)3.02.4Not significant
Tan et al.2.72.010.5
Lew3.24.510.0
Bills et al.3.02.43.1

Incisor Retraction and Lip Retraction Ratios

StudyUpper Lip to Incisor RetractionLower Lip to Incisor Retraction
Caplan et al.1:1.41:1.2
Other Studies1:2.21:1.75

Clinical Implications

  • Four-premolar extractions effectively reduce lip procumbency in bimaxillary protrusion.
  • Nasolabial angle tends to increase post-treatment.