Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices

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.

Development of a Cranial Suture Traction Therapy Program for Facial Asymmetry Correction Using the New Delphi Technique

“…Facial asymmetry refers to an incomplete match in size, location, and shape of bilateral structures in relation to the centerline [ 24 ]. As most people have this asymmetry, it has been referred to as one of the morphological characteristics of the body [ 25 , 26 ].…”

“…Yogosawa suggested that skeletal abnormalities can be covered by soft tissues, such as muscles and skin [ 30 ]. Duran et al [ 31 ] and Shamlan and Aldrees [ 24 , 32 ] reported that people with symmetrical facial features still have skeletal asymmetry and proved that there is a difference in the degree of asymmetry between hard and soft tissues. Ferrario et al [ 33 ] and Haraguchi et al [ 34 ] identified differences between the hard and soft tissues in terms of the role of asymmetry in recognizing class III asymmetry of the craniofacial skeleton.…”