Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of perception of attractiveness of the smile among dentists, dental students, and lay persons in cases of agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors replaced by canines for space closure. Methods: A smiling front view extraoral photograph of a 20-year-old woman was digitally altered simulating agenesis and its treatment, by means of: repositioning, reshaping or bleaching the canine, and gingival contour. A questionnaire was distributed to individuals of the three groups (n= 150), with a view to evaluating their degree of esthetic perception. An attractiveness scale was also used, with ‘0’ representing unattractive and ‘10’, very attractive. Results: In the comparative evaluation among all the photographs, the original image obtained the highest level of acceptance. Photograph ‘i’ (agenesis of both lateral incisors treated with reposition and reshaping of the canines) was ranked as the least attractive by the dentists, whereas the student and lay persons ranked photograph ‘f’ (agenesis of both lateral incisors treated with reposition of the canines, gingival contour, bleaching and reshaping) as the worst. Conclusion: The methods of treatment most accepted among the dentists and students were those that involved changes in the gingival contour, whereas among lay persons, they were those that involved only reshaping.

Objectives: To test the null hypotheses that the positions of the glenoid fossae and mandibular condyles are identical on the Class I and Class II sides of patients with Class II subdivision malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Retrospective three-dimensional (3D) assessments of the positions of the glenoid fossae and mandibular condyles were made in patients with Class II malocclusion. Relative to a fiducial reference at the anterior cranial base, distances from the glenoid fossae and condyles were calculated in pretreatment cone beam computed tomographic scans of 82 patients: 41 with Class II and 41 with Class II subdivision malocclusions. The 3D distances from glenoid fossae to sella turcica in the X (right-left), Y (anterior-posterior), Z (inferior-superior) projections were calculated. Results: Patients with Class II malocclusion displayed a symmetric position of the glenoid fossae and condyles with no statistically significant differences between sides (P . .05), whereas patients with Class II subdivision showed asymmetry in the distance between the glenoid fossae and anterior cranial base or sella turcica (P , .05), with distally and laterally positioned glenoid fossae on the Class II side. (P , .05). Male patients had greater distances between glenoid fossae and anterior cranial fossae (P , .05). The condylar position relative to the glenoid fossae did not differ between the two malocclusion groups nor between males and females (P . .05). Conclusions: The null hypotheses were rejected. Patients with Class II subdivision malocclusion displayed asymmetrically positioned right-and left-side glenoid fossae, with a distally and laterally positioned Class II side, although the condyles were symmetrically positioned within the glenoid fossae. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:847-854.)