Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appliance

Paula, Eliana Cássia Molina de; Conti, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira; Siqueira, Danilo Furquim; Valarelli, Danilo Pinelli; Almeida–Pedrin, Renata Rodrigues de

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.038

Cited by 19 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14,17,18 However, aspects that influence examiners' perceptions of facial attractiveness may be eliminated by using profile silhouettes. 15,19,20,21,22 The concept that orthodontic treatment by extraction of premolars damages facial profile esthetics often keeps the orthodontist back from choosing this option in devising the treatment planning. In this respect, over the years, orthodontists have been investigating the relationship between facial profile esthetics and orthodontic treatment by tooth extraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,24,26,28 Just like the extraction group, treatment with the Forsus appliance also produced positive changes in the facial profile; however, both groups of evaluators assigned greater scores to the Forsus appliance at posttreatment (Table 3), thus corroborating other studies that used fixed functional appliances to achieve an improvement in the facial profile. 4,21,29 Even though the protocols for both extraction and Forsus achieved favorable results, the observation between lay individuals and orthodontists was different concerning the facial impact, in that the impact was more perceptible to orthodontists. Other studies 21,22,29 also observed differences in the opinion of lay individuals and orthodontists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,21,29 Even though the protocols for both extraction and Forsus achieved favorable results, the observation between lay individuals and orthodontists was different concerning the facial impact, in that the impact was more perceptible to orthodontists. Other studies 21,22,29 also observed differences in the opinion of lay individuals and orthodontists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As corroborated by their study, the investigations made into facial attractiveness by evaluating the soft tissue profile have demonstrated that the differences in the outcomes are viewed differently by orthodontists and lay individuals. 9,21,22 An evaluation by Paula et al 21 of the treatment effects achieved by the mandibular protraction appliance (MPA) on the profile silhouettes showed that there was a difference in the perception of these effects by examiners. They found that lay individuals identified the difference between the pre-and posttreatment silhouettes as being greater than the orthodontists, unlike the present study, in which the orthodontists assigned greater scores to the posttreatment outlines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature has poorly described the investigation on the association between perception of esthetic results and cephalometric norms after treatment 8,9 . Similarly, most perception studies have used different evaluators such as laypeople, orthodontists, and dental students, and a few studies have focused on patient perceptions 6,7,[10][11][12] . This justifies the need for patients themselves to evaluate esthetic perception, as they might provide useful information when seeking to associate these data with those of cephalometric standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between normative and perceived esthetic results after treatment of mandibular retrognathism

Marques

Menezes

Venezian

et al. 2019

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This cross-sectional study aimed to associate the normative cephalometric results of mandibular retrognathism treatment with patient perception on the esthetic improvement of facial profile. Objective this cross-sectional study aimed to associate the normative cephalometric results of mandibular retrognathism treatment with patient perception on the esthetic improvement of facial profile. Material and method The normative cephalometric results were obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs of a sample of 24 Class II malocclusion patients in the pubertal growth spurt. Such patients were treated with a mandibular advancement device and evaluated by comparing pre- and post-treatment variables. The same radiographs were used to produce standardized black silhouettes that were randomly arranged. Patients were instructed to choose their preferred profile and indicate the changes perceived using a 7-point Likert scale. The data were compared with cephalometric results using a mixed-model methodology for time-repeated measures, Student’s t-test, and t-test for heterogeneous variances, at 5% significance level. Result A rate of 75% of patients preferred post-treatment silhouettes and changes were perceived regardless of the choice of either pre- or post-treatment profile. There was no significant difference between the cephalometric variables of the tracings that produced the silhouettes considered better or worse after the evaluation. Conclusion There was no association between the cephalometric results after treatment and the perception of esthetic improvement by patients treated for mandibular retrognathia.

show abstract

Self-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people

Volpato¹,

Almeida–Pedrin²,

Oltramari³

et al. 2020

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appliance

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Association between normative and perceived esthetic results after treatment of mandibular retrognathism

Self-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About