This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Mohamed K, Christian J, Jeyapalan K, Natarajan S, Banu F, Veeravalli PT. Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):599– Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear Kasim Mohamed, MDS; Jayanth Christian, MDS; Karthigeyan Jeyapalan, MDS; Shanmuganathan Natarajan, MDS; Fathima Banu, MDS; Padmanabhan T. Veeravalli, MDS
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Mohamed K, Christian J, Jeyapalan K, Natarajan S, Banu F, Veeravalli PT. Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):599– Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Aim – Assess ear position with a reference plane indicator, angulations of ear in relation to nose, visibility from frontal view, and ear dimensions by using various anthropometric points of face. Relevance – Regardless of treatment plan selected for unilaterally missing ear, existing ear’s dimensions, position, level, and prominence must be measured to predict seating and shaping of final ear prosthesis, but no such guide exists for bilateral missing ear.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Mohamed K, Christian J, Jeyapalan K, Natarajan S, Banu F, Veeravalli PT. Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):599– Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Method 254 subjects between 18 and 30 yr old. – Divided into four groups based on facial form. Reference plane indicator, facial topographical measurements, metal ruler, and digital photography were used.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Mohamed K, Christian J, Jeyapalan K, Natarajan S, Banu F, Veeravalli PT. Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):599– Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Results In all facial forms except square tapering, there was a tendency for subaurale to be in line with subnasale. Subnasale to gnathion distance was most dependent variable with ear length as constant predictor. Interalar distance and exocanthion to endocanthion distance correlated highly significantly to ear width. Ear visibility from front was an average 1.5 mm. Regardless of facial form, ear angulation was generally less than nose angulation.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Mohamed K, Christian J, Jeyapalan K, Natarajan S, Banu F, Veeravalli PT. Identifying position, visibility, dimensions, and angulation of the ear. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):599– Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Conclusion Although technology has advanced and newer techniques are available, anthropometric measurements offer successful outcomes while determining positioning, dimensions, visibility, and angulation of ear prostheses.