Long-term profile attractiveness in Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions

Mendes, Lucas Marzullo; Janson, Guilherme; Junqueira-Mendes, Cintia Helena Zingaretti; Garib, Daniela Gamba

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.04.030

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample size calculation was based on an alpha significance level of 5% and a beta of 20% to achieve 80% of test power to detect a minimum difference of 0.9 points in the score of profile attractiveness, with a standard deviation of 1.02 [ 30 ]. This way, the sample size calculation showed the need for 21 subjects.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Profile Attractiveness between Class III Orthodontic Camouflage and Predictive Tracing of Orthognathic Surgery

Wadi¹,

Freitas²,

Freitas³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the profile attractiveness between orthodontic camouflage of the Class III malocclusion and the predictive tracing simulating orthognathic surgery evaluated by dentists and laypeople. Settings and sample population. The sample consisted of 21 patients (9 male; 12 female) with Class III malocclusion treated with orthodontic camouflage and Class III intermaxillary elastics. Material and Methods. The mean initial age of the patients was 24.38 years (SD 3.32), and the mean ANB angle was −1.91° (SD 0.83°). Patients presented skeletal Class III and normal growth patterns. Initial and final lateral cephalograms of each patient were used. The initial cephalogram was used to perform the treatment simulation of orthognathic surgery, and its silhouette was compared to the silhouette obtained from the final cephalogram after Class III orthodontic camouflage. A subjective analysis of profile attractiveness was performed by 47 laypeople and 60 dentists, with scores from 1 (less attractive) to 10 (most attractive). Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare profile attractiveness between the orthodontic treatment and the predictive tracing groups and between dentists and laypeople. Results. The predictive tracing of orthognathic surgery showed to be statistically significantly more attractive (mean score 4.57, SD 2.47) than that of the Class III camouflage orthodontic treatment (mean score 4.22, SD 2.40), with a mean numerical but significant difference of 0.35 (SD 2.01) (P<0.001). Laypeople were more critical than dentists in evaluating profile attractiveness, but numerical difference between the groups was also small. Conclusion. The profile silhouette of predictive tracing simulating orthognathic surgery showed to be more attractive than that of Class III camouflage orthodontic treatment; however, differences were small but statistically significant. Laypeople showed to be more critical than dentists.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Profile Attractiveness between Class III Orthodontic Camouflage and Predictive Tracing of Orthognathic Surgery

Wadi¹,

Freitas²,

Freitas³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 19 However, other studies with fixed and removable functional appliances showed improved facial profile attractiveness. 20 - 22 Mendes et al 23 found similar attractiveness for nonextraction Class II treatment when compared to 2- and 4-premolar extraction. Janson et al 1 found similar soft tissue changes between Class II treatment with fixed functional appliances or maxillary premolars extraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Pozza¹,

Cançado²,

Valarelli³

et al. 2021

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The answer is a clear "No". On the contrary, if extractions are indicated, they can help to improve the profile, 19,20 the smile, [21][22][23] and to promote long term stability. 24 Many orthodontists are convinced that in patents with CMLI, for whom extractions are not indicated, space closure should be avoided out of the fear to compromise the facial profile and to narrow the smile.…”

Section: Minimally or Non-invasive Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Missing teeth in the smile area: space closure in all malocclusions looking for long term health, esthetics and function

Rosa¹

2020

Seminars in Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term profile attractiveness in Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Comparison of Profile Attractiveness between Class III Orthodontic Camouflage and Predictive Tracing of Orthognathic Surgery

Comparison of Profile Attractiveness between Class III Orthodontic Camouflage and Predictive Tracing of Orthognathic Surgery

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

Missing teeth in the smile area: space closure in all malocclusions looking for long term health, esthetics and function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About