Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

The Relationship Between Ocular Protrusion and Craniofacial Structures

Gulsen, Ayse, MD*; Uzuner, Fatma Deniz, MD; Sibar, Serhat, MD*

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery: June 2019 - Volume 30 - Issue 4 - p 1109–1112
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005438
Clinical Studies

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the relationships between ocular protrusion and other craniofacial structures.

Methods: The lateral cephalograms of 124 nonsyndromic white adults were assessed. Two orbital and 13 craniofacial parameters were measured. Subgroups were constructed according to sex, anteroposterior position of maxilla, and mandibular plane angle values.Anatomical parameters and their relationships were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance and multivariate stepwise regression analysis.

Results: There were no significant differences in ocular protrusion distances between sexes, and between individuals with different maxillary anteroposterior position and mandibular plane angle values. Ocular protrusion distances, the distance between the eyeball apex and the lateral orbital margin (Eyeball apex—LOr: OP1) and inferior orbital margin (Eyeball apex—IOr: OP2), were found to be 20.6 ± 2.8 and 16.5 ± 3.1, respectively. However, regression analysis showed that the ocular protrusion distances had weak correlation with a few craniofacial structures. The OP1 had a low negative relationship with the maxillary anteroposterior position (N-Aperp) (r: −0.289) (P < 0.05). The OP2 had a low negative relationship with the palatal plane angle (FH/PP) (r: −0.291) (P < 0.01) but had a positive relationship with the cranial base angle (BSN) (r: 0.304) (P < 0.01) and posterior facial height (SGo) (r: 0.299) (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Ocular protrusion distances did not differ by sex, maxillary anteroposterior position, and amount of mandibular plane angle and showed weak correlation with a few craniofacial structures. Ocular protrusion amounts can be used for diagnosis and treatment plan in craniofacial syndromic or nonsyndromic anomalies.

*Gazi University Hospital, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Serhat Sibar, MD, Gazi University Hospital, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 14th floor Besevler, Ankara 06500, Turkey; E-mail:

Received 21 March, 2018

Accepted 28 January, 2019

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

© 2019 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.