No abstract

Objective: To assess the scientific evidence of the influence of some variables on smile attractiveness: orthodontic treatment, midline position, axial midline angulation, buccal corridor, and smile arc. Materials and Methods: Literature was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and All EBM Reviews. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies written in English; published in the past three decades; concerning the influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, axial midline angulation, buccal corridor, and smile arc on smile esthetics; and judged by a minimum of 10 raters. Quality features evaluated were adequate description of samples, absence of confounding factors, and description of methods used to evaluate the smiles and statistical analyses. Results: Initially, 203 articles were retrieved. Of these, 20 abstracts met the initial inclusion criteria and were selected. Thirteen articles were classified as high quality, seven as average, and none as low quality. Conclusion: Four-premolar extraction or nonextraction treatment protocols seem to have no predictable effect on overall smile esthetics, meaning that if well indicated, extraction in orthodontics does not necessarily have a deleterious effect on facial esthetics. The selected articles recommend that a small dental midline deviation of 2.2 mm can be considered acceptable by both orthodontists and laypeople, whereas an axial midline angulation of 10u (2 mm measured from the midline papilla and the incisal edges of the incisors) is already very apparent, and considering studies dealing with real smiles, buccal corridor sizes and smile arc alone do not seem to affect smile attractiveness. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:153-161.)

ObjectivesIt is well known that the efficacy and the efficiency of a Class II malocclusion treatment are aspects closely related to the severity of the dental anteroposterior discrepancy. Even though, sample selection based on cephalometric variables without considering the severity of the occlusal anteroposterior discrepancy is still common in current papers. In some of them, when occlusal parameters are chosen, the severity is often neglected. The purpose of this study is to verify the importance given to the classification of Class II malocclusion, based on the criteria used for sample selection in a great number of papers published in the orthodontic journal with the highest impact factor.Material and MethodsA search was performed in PubMed database for full-text research papers referencing Class II malocclusion in the history of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO).ResultsA total of 359 papers were retrieved, among which only 72 (20.06%) papers described the occlusal severity of the Class II malocclusion sample. In the other 287 (79.94%) papers that did not specify the anteroposterior discrepancy severity, description was considered to be crucial in 159 (55.40%) of them.ConclusionsOmission in describing the occlusal severity demands a cautious interpretation of 44.29% of the papers retrieved in this study.

Most of mesiodistal measures present particular characteristics in relation to gender, with higher values for males, and to race, with a tendency for African to present greater mesiodistal distance of the teeth, followed by Japanese and Caucasians, respectively, important for the correct diagnosis and orthodontic planning.

Introduction: Cleft lip and palate are craniofacial anomalies highly prevalent in the overall population. In oral clefts involving the alveolar ridge, variations of number, shape, size and position are observed in maxillary lateral incisors. The objective of this manuscript is to elucidate the embryonic origin of maxillary lateral incisors in order to understand the etiology of these variations. Contextualization: The hypothesis that orofacial clefts would split maxillary lateral incisor buds has been previously reported. However, recent studies showed that maxillary lateral incisors have dual embryonic origin, being partially formed by both the medial nasal process and the maxillary process. In other words, the mesial half of the lateral incisor seems to come from the medial nasal process while the distal half of the lateral incisor originates from the maxillary process. In cleft patients, these processes do not fuse, which results in different numerical and positional patterns for lateral incisors relating to the alveolar cleft. In addition to these considerations, this study proposes a nomenclature for maxillary lateral incisors in patients with cleft lip and palate, based on embryology and lateral incisors position in relation to the alveolar cleft. Conclusion: Embryological knowledge on the dual origin of maxillary lateral incisors and the use of a proper nomenclature for their numerical and positional variations renders appropriate communication among professionals and treatment planning easier, in addition to standardizing research analysis.