Esthetic judgments of palatally displaced canines 3 months postdebond after surgical exposure with either a closed or an open technique

Parkin, Nicola; Freeman, Jennifer; Deery, Chris; Benson, Philip

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.10.026

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each evaluator was given a brief explanation of the study and was asked to evaluate the appliance’ aesthetics of the images using the visual analog scale (VAS), which was printed separately for each of the images, as in previous studies 7 10 , 12 , 13 The visual analog scale consisted of a 100-mm uninterrupted line labeled “very unaesthetic” on the left side and “very aesthetic” on the right (Fig 2). The evaluators were instructed to make a vertical mark along the scale to indicate their aesthetic perceptions of each smile.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do laypersons perceive aesthetic differences between coated and uncoated orthodontic archwires?

Pinzan-Vercelino

Campelo

Fahd

et al. 2019

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Aesthetic brackets are routinely combined with metallic wires in fixed orthodontic therapy, mainly due to the disadvantages of the clinical use of aesthetic archwires. The current situation needs to be explored in the literature by considering laypersons’ perceptions. Objective: The objective of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate laypersons’ aesthetic perceptions of metal archwires with and without aesthetic coating. Three age ranges and both sexes were evaluated. Methods: A volunteer using fixed aesthetic orthodontic appliance was photographed wearing the following archwires: stainless steel, nickel-titanium (NiTi), NiTi coated with epoxy resin and NiTi coated with rhodium. Using a 100-mm visual analog scale, 90 laypersons evaluated the photographs. Sex and age ranges (18-30, 31-45, over 46 years of age) were evaluated. The comparisons between the archwires and between age ranges were made using ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Genders were compared using Mann-Whitney test. Results: The results showed that the evaluators considered the archwire coated with epoxy resin to be the most aesthetic (60.64 ± 13.04) and the NiTi wire to be the least aesthetic (30.82 ± 7.79) (p< 0.05). Only the range of 31-45 years of age considered the NiTi archwires less aesthetic, when compared with the other age groups. For the other archwires, no statistically significant difference were found between the age groups. No differences between the sexes were detected. Conclusions: The results indicated that the aesthetic coated archwires represent an improvement in the visual aspect of ceramic brackets. The epoxy-coated metal wire was considered the most aesthetic option.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do laypersons perceive aesthetic differences between coated and uncoated orthodontic archwires?

Pinzan-Vercelino

Campelo

Fahd

et al. 2019

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are advantages and disadvantages of both techniques as discussed by Mathews and Kokich 23 and by Becker and Chaushu 25 and these are summarised in Table 1 As a result, the same author conducted a trial comparing open and closed exposure and reported that there were no differences in surgical outcome, operating time or patient related outcome measures (PROMs) 27 between the two techniques. Nor were there differences between the techniques in terms of the final periodontal condition of the exposed canines 28 and whether orthodontists could identify which technique was used, although they could identify an exposed tooth [29][30][31] …”

Section: Open Vs Closed Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Aberrant Canine Part 2: Treatment

Mittal¹,

Atack

Naish

et al. 2018

Orthodontic Update

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relatively little is known, however, about how the aesthetic outcomes of impacted canine treatment options are perceived, with few studies having examined the aesthetic outcomes of previously impacted canines after treatment (Grisar et al, 2018;Parkin N et al, 2015;Sampaziotis et al, 2017), and even fewer studies examining the perceptions of dental attractiveness in relation to the substitution of premolars for canines and the other alternative treatment options (Altman et al, 1979: Mirabella et al, 2013Thiruvenkatachari et al, 2017). This is potentially vital information in the treatment planning process, especially if the patient has the choice of several potential treatment plans with significantly different lengths of treatment and risks associated with them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of smile aesthetic perception among dental professionals, patients and parents towards impacted maxillary canine treatment options

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the smile aesthetics of the different treatment options for impacted maxillary canines as perceived by orthodontists, dentists, patients and parents. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Four rater groups were selected to complete the questionnaire consisting of an orthodontist group, a general dental practitioner group, a patient group consisting of patients aged 11–18 years who were considered to be ‘Gillick competent’ and a parent group consisting of parents/guardians who accompanied the patients to their orthodontic appointments. Method: Four digitally manipulated images were created to imitate different treatment options available for the treatment of ectopic maxillary canines including: alignment of the impacted maxillary canine; substituted premolars; retained deciduous canines; or gaps present. The images were embedded into piloted questionnaires. Each participant completing the questionnaire was asked to mark the visual analogue scale (VAS) beneath each image according to their perception of attractiveness of each image. Quantitative scoring of the perceived attractiveness of the smile was assessed by one calibrated assessor measuring the distance from the start of the scale to the marked cross placed on the VAS. A two-way ANOVA (mixed between-within subject’s ANOVA) was used to compare perception of differences in smile aesthetics. Results: There were significant differences found in the VAS between the groups ( P = 0.002) and between the treatment options ( P < 0.001) There was no statistically significant difference found between the aligned canines and substituted premolars images by the patient ( P = 0.2) or parent group ( P = 0.5). All groups most disliked the treatment option where gaps were present at the end of treatment. Conclusion: The patient and parent groups showed similar perception in smile aesthetics for aligned canines and substituted premolars and all groups showed a strong dislike to the presence of gaps. The orthodontist group showed the most critical aesthetic perceptions.

show abstract

Esthetic judgments of palatally displaced canines 3 months postdebond after surgical exposure with either a closed or an open technique

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

Do laypersons perceive aesthetic differences between coated and uncoated orthodontic archwires?

Do laypersons perceive aesthetic differences between coated and uncoated orthodontic archwires?

The Aberrant Canine Part 2: Treatment

A study of smile aesthetic perception among dental professionals, patients and parents towards impacted maxillary canine treatment options

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About