Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dentofacial appearance in patients applying for orthodontic treatment

Wezel, Naomi A. van; Bos, Annemieke; Prahl, Charlotte

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.024

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Facial attractiveness is positively correlated with self-esteem, and both interpersonal and professional relationships. 13 Since beauty standards differ according to the perception of lay individuals and orthodontists, it is fundamental to know the opinion of both groups. Satisfaction with facial and dental appearance is a predictor for knowing patients' expectations toward orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rocha

Casteluci

Ferreira³

et al. 2020

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oral health cannot, therefore, be ascribed to patients demonstrating such behaviours. Furthermore, children also cite dental health concerns when seeking orthodontic treatment . While tooth irregularity has been shown to have a positive and significant association with plaque accumulation, its amount is clinically insignificant when considering the incidence of caries .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, children also cite dental health concerns when seeking orthodontic treatment. 12,15 While tooth irregularity has been shown to have a positive and significant association with plaque accumulation, its amount is clinically insignificant when considering the incidence of caries. 16 Moreover, short-term improvements in oral hygiene standards have been reported in orthodontically treated children; this oral health gain is believed to stem from behavioural factors rather than orthodontic alignment per se.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of orthodontic treatment on dental caries: An Australian cohort study

Doğramacı

Brennan

2019

Comm Dent Oral Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the influence of orthodontic treatment on long‐term caries experience in 30‐year‐old South Australians. The research hypothesis that was tested was that those with previous orthodontic treatment would have lower caries experience. Methods In 2005‐2006, a sample of 1859 30‐year‐olds from Adelaide, South Australia, who comprised 47% of participants who had previously taken part in an oral epidemiology study in 1988‐1989, were traced from the Australian electoral roll and invited to participate in a cross‐sectional study investigating long‐term dental health outcomes. Participants completed a questionnaire that collected information on socio‐demographic characteristics, dental health behaviours and receipt of orthodontic treatment. This was followed by clinical examination. The outcome variables were the summed decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) score, and its individual components. Data were analysed using negative binomial regression. Results The response rate for the questionnaire was 34% (n = 632). There were no systematic differences between those who were followed up and those who were not followed up. Clinical data for 448 participants were available for analyses, representing 24% of the originally contacted individuals. By the age of 30, over a third of participants had received orthodontic treatment. Regardless of initial malocclusion classification, orthodontically treated participants had a lower DMFT score at age 30 but this did not reach statistical significance. Adjusted models controlling for socio‐demographic, dental health behaviour and malocclusion status showed no associations between orthodontic treatment and decayed (Exp B: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.72‐1.40), missing (Exp B: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.59‐1.69), or filled teeth (Exp B: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.93‐1.51) or overall DMFT (Exp B: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88‐1.41). Conclusion There was no difference in the long‐term caries experience of South Australians aged 30 years based on past orthodontic treatment. Our study does not support the contention that those treated orthodontically have better dental health later in life.

show abstract

“…Thus, outcomes of treatment have typically emphasized aspects that can be technically achieved with certainty, with minimal attention given to patient‐centred values. Psychosocial improvements may be cited by patients as expected outcomes of orthodontic treatment, a view shared by some general dental practitioners and orthodontists . This likely stems from the belief that a visible malocclusion can cause psychosocial problems in the affected individual, despite a lack of evidence to support this.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The long‐term influence of orthodontic treatment on adults’ psychosocial outcomes: An Australian cohort study

Doğramacı

Brennan

2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the influence of orthodontic treatment on psychosocial outcomes in 30‐year‐olds. The research hypothesis tested was that participants previously treated orthodontically would have better psychosocial outcomes. Setting and Sample Population A prospective longitudinal cohort design was used to follow‐up a sample of 1859 30‐year‐olds from Adelaide, South Australia, who had previously participated in an oral epidemiology study. Materials and methods Clinical examination in 1988‐1989 recorded participants’ malocclusion severity. In 2005‐2006, participants were invited to complete a questionnaire collecting data on socio‐demographic characteristics, dental health behaviours, receipt of orthodontic treatment and psychosocial factors. Data were analysed descriptively and by linear regression models. Results Data for 448 participants were available; 56% of participants were female. Over a third of participants had received orthodontic treatment. Higher income earners had the best psychosocial outcomes while participants with a basic level of secondary education had the lowest. Regardless of initial malocclusion severity, orthodontic treatment was not associated with better psychosocial outcomes. Instead, a pattern of better psychosocial outcome was observed amongst untreated participants, regardless of malocclusion severity, this being significant for optimism. Adjusted models controlling for socio‐demographic, dental health behaviour and malocclusion severity showed no association between orthodontic treatment and self‐efficacy, health competence or social support. There was, however, a strong association with optimism. Conclusion There was no difference in long‐term psychosocial outcomes based on orthodontic treatment. Our study does not support the contention that orthodontic treatment produces better psychosocial functioning later in life.

show abstract

Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dentofacial appearance in patients applying for orthodontic treatment

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 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

The influence of orthodontic treatment on dental caries: An Australian cohort study

The long‐term influence of orthodontic treatment on adults’ psychosocial outcomes: An Australian cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About