Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics

Abstract

Objective: To compare the facial profile attractiveness of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics. Methods: Sample comprised 47 Class II patients divided into two groups: G1) TWIN FORCE - 25 patients treated with fixed appliances and Twin Force® fixed functional appliance (mean initial age was 17.91 ± 7.13 years, mean final age was 20.45 ± 7.18 years, and mean treatment time was 2.53 ± 0.83 years); G2) ELASTICS - 22 patients treated with fixed appliances and Class II intermaxillary elastics (mean initial age was 15.87 ± 5.64 years, mean final age was 18.63 ± 5.79 years and mean treatment time was 2.75 ± 0.60 years). Lateral cephalograms from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. Cephalometric variables were measured and silhouettes of facial profile were constructed and evaluated by 48 laypeople and 63 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney and independent t-tests. Results: At pretreatment, facial profile of the Twin Force® group was less attractive than the Elastics group. Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics resulted in similar facial profile attractiveness, but the facial convexity was more reduced in the Twin Force® group. Orthodontists were more critical than laypeople. Conclusions: Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics produced similar facial profile attractiveness at posttreatment. Profile attractiveness was reduced with treatment in the elastic group, and improved in the Twin Force® group. Facial convexity was more reduced with treatment in the Twin Force® group.

Behavior of the mandibular length in class II non-growing patients treated with jaw functional orthopedics

“…None of the papers recovered can be entirely compared with the present studies recovered investigated responses of Planas appliances, neither in non growing individuals as done in this investigation. Despite of that, results found in the literature consulted [4,5,13,[18][19][20]22] are similar to those found on the current investigation.…”

“…Regarding some aspects that justify Class II treatment such as increase attractiveness [4,5] and consequently self-esteem, helping prevention or assist in the treatment of spinal column problems [6][7][8]10], TMD treatment [26], they are not analyzed in the present study.…”

“…Mandibular growth due to JFO treatment of Class II with mandibular forward positioning in growing individuals is shown in the literature [4,5,13,[18][19][20]22]. The type of appliance used in the class II treatment influences organism responses in its own way [22].…”

“…The significant commitment of facial aesthetic is the main reason why class II is the malocclusion most leads to the search for corrective treatment [1]. Although the perception of beauty is highly subjective it is a common sense that retrognathia impacts significantly facial aesthetics [3][4][5]. One of many benefits of mandibular advancement is the improvement of facial esthetics [4,5].…”

“…Although the perception of beauty is highly subjective it is a common sense that retrognathia impacts significantly facial aesthetics [3][4][5]. One of many benefits of mandibular advancement is the improvement of facial esthetics [4,5].…”