Keywords
Malocclusion, Angle Class II
Esthetics
Cross-sectional studies
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the esthetic perceptionof profile silhouette of pictures of class II patients before andafter treatment (extractions or mandibular advancement),according to a visual analog scale (VAS) among orthodontists,general dentists and lay people. Methods: A presentation of 18class II adult patients silhouette was shown to three groups ofparticipants (25 orthodontists, 25 general dentists, and 25 laypeople) in two phases in an cross-sectional survey study. An initialpresentation pre-treatment and a second one post-treatment,one month later. The presentation consisted of nine pictures offour extractions orthodontic cases (two maxillary premolars andtwo mandibular premolars): five males, four females, and othernine pictures with a dentoalveolar mandibular advance (Forsus®and/or class II elastics): four males, five females. To comparepre and post-treatment scores, an ANOVA test was performed.Independent variables studied were: sex, age, and previousor present orthodontic treatment of participants. Results:A total of 75 of evaluators scored 18 patient profiles beforeand after treatment. In the three groups, the post treatmentsilhouette scored significantly higher. Advancement treatmentscored significantly higher than extractions, especially amonglay people. Orthodontist gave the lowers score regardless oftreatment. No differences were found between male and femalescoring (p>0.05). The participants between 30-39 years old gavehigher scores than other age groups(p<0,05). Conclusion: In oursample, class II orthodontic treatments did always improveesthetic perception of patients profile. Advancement treatmentachieved a better esthetic perception than extractions, especiallyamong lay people.
References
Perretta DI, Burt MD, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and Hu-man Facial Attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav.1999; 20:295-307.
Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. Madrid: Elsevier; 2005.
Simmons HC 3rd, Oxford DE, Hill MD. The prevalence of skeletal Class II patients found in a consecutive population presenting for TMD treatment compared to the national average. J Tenn Dent Assoc. 2008 Fall;88(4):16-8; quiz 18-9.
Riggio RE, Widaman, KF, Tucker JS, Salinas C. Beauty is more than skin deep: components of attractiveness. Basic Appl Soc Psych.1991;12(4):423-39. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1204_4.
Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. 1995 Jun;1(2):82-93. doi: 10.1016/s1073-8746(95)80095-6.
Orsini MG, Huang GJ, Kiyak HA, Ramsay DS, Bollen AM, Anderson NK, Giddon DB. Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the anteroposterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Den-tofacial Orthop. 2006 Sep;130(3):283-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.026.
Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Or-thod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Aug;120(2):98-111. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.114301.
Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1978 Jun;73(6):648-57. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7.
Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970 Oct;40(4):284-318. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040<0284:ACOFE>2.0.CO;2.
Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Apr;125(4):407-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.007.
Foster LA, Thomson WM, Locker D. Assessing the responsiveness of the CPQ11-14 in New Zealand adolescents. Soc Sci Dent. 2010;1:48-53.
Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Aug;104(2):180-7. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X.
Lai J, Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Effect of orthodontic therapy on the facial profile in long and short vertical facial patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Nov;118(5):505-13. doi: 10.1067/mod.2000.110331.
Abu Arqoub SH, Al-Khateeb SN. Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Feb;33(1):103-11. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq028.
Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD, et al. Esthetic prefer-ences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4 Suppl):S87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.019.
Mergen JL, Southard KA, Dawson DV, Fogle LL, Casko JS, Southard TE. Treatment outcomes of growing Class II Division 1 patients with varying degrees of anteroposterior and vertical dyspla-sias, Part 2. Profile silhouette evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Apr;125(4):457-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.004.
Molina de Paula EC, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC, Siqueira DF, Valarelli DP, de Almeida-Pedrin RR. Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appli-ance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Feb;151(2):311-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.038.
Moresca AHK, de Moraes ND, Topolski F, Flores-Mir C, Moro A, Moresca RC, et al. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances. Angle Orthod. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.2319/052719-362.1.
Rocha AD, Casteluci CEVF, Ferreira FPC, Conti AC, Almeida MR, Almeida-Pedrin RR. Esthet-ic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment. Braz Oral Res. 2020 Jan 31;34:e003. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0003.
Tadic N, Woods MG. Incisal and soft tissue effects of maxillary premolar extraction in class II treatment. Angle Orthod. 2007 Sep;77(5):808-16. doi: 10.2319/081706-336.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Downloads
