No abstract

The magnitude of apical root resorption in maxillary incisors in patients with anterior crowding was similar regardless of orthodontic technique, lingual or conventional. Both techniques resulting in an apical rounding considered clinically insignificant.

Orthodontic treatment causes a significant increase in self-esteem and QoL, providing psychological benefits for adult patients in need of oral rehabilitation.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the treatment times of Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects treated with four first premolar extractions or a non-extraction protocol and fixed edgewise appliances. Eighty-four patients were selected and divided into two groups. Group 1, treated with four first premolar extractions, consisted of 48 patients (27 males and 21 females) with a mean age of 13.03 years and group 2, treated without extractions, consisted of 36 patients (18 males and 18 females) with a mean age of 13.13 years. Group 2 was subdivided into two subgroups, 2A consisting of 16 patients treated in one phase and 2B consisting of 20 patients treated in two phases. The initial and final Treatment Priority Index (TPI), initial ages, initial mandibular crowding, and treatment times of groups 1 and 2 were compared with t-tests. These variables were also compared between group 1 and the subgroups with analysis of variance followed by Tukey's tests. The treatment times for groups 1 and 2 and subgroups 2A and 2B were 2.36, 2.47, 2.25, and 2.64 years, respectively, which were not significantly different. Treatment times with non-extraction and four premolar extraction protocols are similar.

No abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the facial attractiveness in 30 black individuals, according to the Subjective Facial Analysis criteria. Methods: Frontal and profile view photographs of 30 black individuals were evaluated for facial attractiveness and classified as esthetically unpleasant, acceptable, or pleasant by 50 evaluators: the 30 individuals from the sample, 10 orthodontists, and 10 laymen. Besides assessing the facial attractiveness, the evaluators had to identify the structures responsible for the classification as unpleasant and pleasant. Intraexaminer agreement was assessed by using Spearman's correlation, correlation within each category using Kendall concordance coefficient, and correlation between the 3 categories using chi-square test and proportions.Results: Most of the frontal (53. 5%) and profile view (54. 9%) photographs were classified as esthetically acceptable. The structures most identified as esthetically unpleasant were the mouth, lips, and face, in the frontal view; and nose and chin in the profile view. The structures most identified as esthetically pleasant were harmony, face, and mouth, in the frontal view; and harmony and nose in the profile view. The ratings by the examiners in the sample and laymen groups showed statistically significant correlation in both views. The orthodontists agreed with the laymen on the evaluation of the frontal view and disagreed on profile view, especially regarding whether the images were esthetically unpleasant or acceptable.Conclusions: Based on these results, the evaluation of facial attractiveness according to the Subjective Facial Analysis criteria proved to be applicable and to have a subjective influence; therefore, it is suggested that the patient's opinion regarding the facial esthetics should be considered in orthodontic treatmentplanning.