Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the pain intensity in patients treated with orthodontic aligners and conventional fixed appliances. Setting and sample population This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample comprised 39 patients randomly allocated into 2 groups: OA (orthodontic aligners, n = 20) and FA (Fixed Appliance, n = 19). Material and methods The pain intensity was measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) in the following periods: T0 (baseline), T1 (seven days after appliance placement) and seven days after each return on the first (T2), third (T3) and sixth (T4) months. The following variables were also investigated in the baseline: conditioned pain modulation, anxiety levels, hypervigilance and catastrophizing. The VAS measurements between groups were compared by the Mann‐Whitney test. Comparisons between periods within each group were performed by the Friedman test. Data regarding catastrophizing and hypervigilance were compared by the t test. All tests were applied at a significance level of 5%, with 95% confidence interval. Results Both groups presented similar levels of anxiety, hypervigilance, catastrophizing and conditioned pain modulation. Both groups did not differ concerning the pain intensity in all periods. The intragroup evaluation revealed statistical differences between days in the FA group at all moments evaluated, for the OA group, similar findings between days were found for the T1 evaluation; however, at the 6‐month period (T4), the pain levels varied over these days without statistical difference. Higher levels of pain were observed in the first seven days after appliance placement. Conclusion The pain intensity, usually mild, was not influenced by the appliance design, although different patterns of reported pain seem to occur between groups.

This retrospective study evaluated facial profile pleasantness determined by two protocols of Class II treatment. The sample comprised facial profile silhouettes obtained retrospectively from the pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cephalograms of 60 patients (42 males and 18 females) divided into two groups. One group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.84 years) was treated with the extraction of maxillary first premolars (mean treatment time of 2.7 years), and the other group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.81 years) was treated with a mandibular advancement appliance (Forsus) (mean treatment time of 2.49 years). The facial profile silhouettes (T1 and T2) were randomly distributed in an album containing one patient per sheet. The examiners consisted of 60 orthodontists and 60 lay individuals, who analyzed the profiles in regard to facial pleasantness, using the Likert scale. A comparison between stages T1 and T2 of the two treatment protocols and between the examiners was performed by mixed-design analysis of variance at a significance level of 5%. The results demonstrated a significant difference between T1 and T2 (greater scores for T2 compared to T1), and between lay individuals and orthodontists (orthodontists assigned higher scores), but with no significant difference between the treatment protocols. Both protocols produced positive effects on the facial profile esthetics, from the standpoint of lay individuals and orthodontists.