No abstract

Objective: To assess the scientific evidence of the influence of some variables on smile attractiveness: orthodontic treatment, midline position, axial midline angulation, buccal corridor, and smile arc. Materials and Methods: Literature was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and All EBM Reviews. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies written in English; published in the past three decades; concerning the influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, axial midline angulation, buccal corridor, and smile arc on smile esthetics; and judged by a minimum of 10 raters. Quality features evaluated were adequate description of samples, absence of confounding factors, and description of methods used to evaluate the smiles and statistical analyses. Results: Initially, 203 articles were retrieved. Of these, 20 abstracts met the initial inclusion criteria and were selected. Thirteen articles were classified as high quality, seven as average, and none as low quality. Conclusion: Four-premolar extraction or nonextraction treatment protocols seem to have no predictable effect on overall smile esthetics, meaning that if well indicated, extraction in orthodontics does not necessarily have a deleterious effect on facial esthetics. The selected articles recommend that a small dental midline deviation of 2.2 mm can be considered acceptable by both orthodontists and laypeople, whereas an axial midline angulation of 10u (2 mm measured from the midline papilla and the incisal edges of the incisors) is already very apparent, and considering studies dealing with real smiles, buccal corridor sizes and smile arc alone do not seem to affect smile attractiveness. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:153-161.)

All of the tested devices promoted dental changes, especially in the anterior region, and contributed to AOB reduction during the study period. However, fixed palatal crib demonstrated greater impact on the positioning of the incisors.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.MethodsThe sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.ResultsTheir effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.ConclusionsThe effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

Objective: To evaluate the dentoskeletal effects of different anterior open bite treatment modalities in children. Materials and Methods: This cephalometric study assessed changes resulting from different treatment approaches on 77 growing children with anterior open bite. A control group (n ¼ 30) was used for comparison. Lateral cephalograms were available before treatment and after 12 months. The sample was divided into four groups: removable palatal crib associated with a chincup (G1), bonded spurs associated with a chincup (G2), chincup (G3), and nontreated control (G4). Statistical comparisons among the four groups were performed on T1 and the treatment changes using analysis of variance with Tukey's post hoc tests. Results: No statistically significant changes in skeletal variables were found among the groups, except for lower anterior face height (LAFH) increase in G1. Overall, effects in all of the treated groups were exclusively dentoalveolar. A larger overbite (OB) increase was observed in G1 and G2 when compared with G3 and G4. The maxillary incisors in G1 showed increased palatal tipping, retrusion, and more vertical dentoalveolar development as well as increased lingual tipping among mandibular incisors. There was less vertical development of maxillary and mandibular molars in G3. Conclusions: A removable palatal crib provided an improvement in OB (97.5%), followed by the bonded spurs (84.5%). Conversely, the chincup-only group did not have positive OB effects. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:969-975)