Facial profile esthetics change of class II malocclusion patients treated with the Herbst appliance as perceived by orthodontists and laypersons

Abstract

Introduction/Objective The recognition of differences in individual assessment of facial attractiveness could be valuable assistance in planning the orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to compare facial profile attractiveness changes of patients treated with the Herbst appliance perceived by orthodontists and laypersons. Methods The patient sample comprised 33 young Caucasian still-growing patients, aged 14-18 years, with skeletal class II malocclusion treated with the Herbst and multibracket appliances. Facial profile photographs before and after the treatment were shown to 54 orthodontists and 50 laypersons. In the esthetics oriented poll, the evaluators rated the change in facial appearance. Results The attractiveness scores differed between the two rater groups (p < 0.001), with orthodontists being more generous, whereas there was no significant difference between female and male evaluators in both groups (p > 0.05). However, scores differed significantly in grading female and male patients (p < 0.001), so that female patients got higher scores; younger evaluators graded more critically between different age groups of the evaluators (p < 0.001), as well as between the patients with different initial severity of malocclusion (p < 0.001). Conclusion The difference in attractiveness scores differed between two groups, with laypersons being more critical than orthodontists. Higher scores were given to female patients by both groups, as well as by the evaluators in the older age group.

A non-cephalometric two-dimensional appraisal of soft tissue changes by functional therapy in Class II patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Lateral head extra-oral photographs were made before and after the treatment in all studies. Paduano et al used the end of the FA treatment as end point (16) five other studies collected their final records after the second phase with fixed appliances (11)(12)(13)(14)(15) implicating no real long term follow-up. One study had a longer follow-up after the treatment, respectively 2 years (17).…”

“…A total of 313 patients were treated with FA. Two studies did not report the male to female ratio (10,11), two studies used perfectly balanced treatment groups (12,13) and two had an abundance of respectively male and female patients (14,15). All studies used a Class II molar relation as inclusion criterion.…”

“…Only two studies reported the vertical growth pattern. Paduano et al had a specific inclusion criterion of Sella-Nasion to mandibular plane (MP) angle ≤ 32° (16), Milutinovic et al only reported a mean value of 32.4 ± 5.3° for the SN to MP angle (11). Two studies treated nongrowing patients (average weighted age: 20.21 years) (14,17), four other studies used younger and still growing patients (average weighted age: 10.77 years) (12,13,15,16).…”

“…Two studies treated nongrowing patients (average weighted age: 20.21 years) (14,17), four other studies used younger and still growing patients (average weighted age: 10.77 years) (12,13,15,16). Milutinovic et al and O'Brien et al did not specify the average age of their samples (10,11). Only three studies used skeletal characteristics as inclusion criteria such as angle between point A, N, and B or MP angle (11,15,16), one study used the cervical vertebral maturation for inclusion but did not report any other skeletal measures (17).…”

“…Milutinovic et al and O'Brien et al did not specify the average age of their samples (10,11). Only three studies used skeletal characteristics as inclusion criteria such as angle between point A, N, and B or MP angle (11,15,16), one study used the cervical vertebral maturation for inclusion but did not report any other skeletal measures (17). All other studies used dental or facial characteristics as inclusion criteria (10,(12)(13)(14).…”