Vol. 6, Issue 1, Part C (2020)

Materials and methods: Fourty- eight frontal photographic images were performed using a (Canon EOS 600D, Japan) digital imaging camera of patients aged (18-25) years were selected with symmetrical face, no history of trauma, no orthodontic treatment or cleft lip or palate divided in three groups (class I, class II div 1, class II div 2 malocclusion), each group consisted of 16 patients. 6 landmarks, 13 measures, 13 ratios were used for photographic measurements on Micro Dicom Viewer software.

Results: This study shows statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in the vertical proportions (TR-LN: LN–ME), (LN-ME:LC-LN) and (LC-LN: LN-CH) (P<0.05), also in the horizontal proportions (CH r-l: LN _r-l), (LC _r-l:CH _r-l) P< (0.05) between the 3 groups.

Out of the 13 ratios, only 3 of class 1 malocclusion ratios were similar to the golden proportion (TR-ME:LC-ME, LC-ME:TR-LC, CH-ME:LN-CH), whilst two of class ii division 1 ratios were similar (TR-ME:LC-ME, LC-ME: TR-LC) and of 13 ratios in class ii division 2 were similar (TR-ME:LC-ME, LC-ME:TR-LC,TR-LN:LN-ME, LC-CH:CH-ME).

Conclusion: Based on this study, we found that it should not be considered every patient with Angle molar class I and a straight profile that is attractive and should be all facial proportions identical to the golden proportion.

Facial proportions of the class I, class II div 1 and class II div 2 were significantly different from the golden proportion, but the vertical proportion in class II div 2 (LC-ME:TR-LC) 1.613 (99.6%) MD (0.005) was the closest to the GP between 3 groups.