The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible

Barroso, Maria Carolina Feio; Silva, Narjara C.F.; Quintão, Cátia Cardoso Abdo; Normando, David

doi:10.1016/j.pio.2011.12.001

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Arnett et al (16), in a series of 46 models, only studied facial structure, but not quality (hair, eyes, skin, etc.). This author also established a dividing line between previous and current facial planning, based on the natural position of the head (26) – his findings corroborating the observations of Ludstron and Ludstron (13), with great reproducibility of these registries beyond the use of the Frankfort plane. It is here where the author introduced the difference with respect to the previous studies (14), using the true vertical as the axis for facial planning of the patients in assessing the profiles.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

See 1 more Smart Citation

True vertical validation in facial orthognathic surgery planning

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To validate the effectiveness of the original standards of True Vertical (TV) Subnasal Line in orthognatic surgery planning. The present study evaluates the changes occurring in patients with skeletal Class II alterations programmed for orthognathic surgery with a view to improving their facial profile. Study design: We showed a series of black profiles (composed by a first control group of subjects with normal occlusion, and another two additional groups comprised patients before –Group 2- and after orthognatic surgical correction of Class II malocclusion -Group 3-) for three groups of observers (orthodontists, surgeons and laypeople). The facial images became black silhouettes in order to determine a series of parameters (including aesthetic assessment) by means of the observers. Their observation were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The sample was composed of 52 profile’s subjects who were tested for a total of 72 observers. Aesthetic assessment yielded mean scores of 2.57, 1.67 and 2.46 for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) between group 1 versus group 2. There were no significant differences in terms of observer assessment of aesthetics, with the exception of a wider perception range among the orthodontists. Regarding the studied profile measures, significant differences were recorded for point B’ and Pg’ (p<0.02) between groups 2 and 3 (i.e., pre- versus post-surgery). Conclusions: The results of our study suggest the subnasale vertical and sagittal measures of the lower third of the face are decisive in facial aesthetics, and therefore also for the planning of orthognathic surgery. Consequently, these aesthetic parameters can be used as an objective tool for the planning of orthodontic treatment. Key words:Facial profile, Class II, orthognathic surgery, cephalometric analysis, facial soft tissue, subnasale vertical.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Orthodontists were found to be more precise in assessing the facial profile results, determining the degree of harmony and beauty of the facial profiles, according with other studies (26-28). In our series the observers yielded similar mean values in assessing profile aesthetics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

True vertical validation in facial orthognathic surgery planning

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

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

“…Although Class II malocclusion requires a longer treatment in adolescents (22), is the authors believe that, because they do not depend on patient compliance, fixed propulsors could abbreviate treatment duration. The treatment time was 2.79 (IQR=1.51) years for adults and 3.2 (IQR=1.5) and 4.1 (IQR=0.8) years for adolescents and children in mixed dentition, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Protraction Appliance Effects in Class II Malocclusion in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the mandibular protraction appliance (MPA) for treating mild to moderate Class II malocclusion at different stages of dentofacial development. Lateral radiographs were evaluated before (T0) and at the end (T1) of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance associated with MPA. Sixty-five consecutively treated patients were divided according to the stage of dentofacial development: 21 children in late mixed dentition, 22 adolescents and 22 young adults with full permanent dentition. The differences between and within groups were analyzed by MANOVA at p<0.05. The correction of anteroposterior discrepancy (Wits) was significantly reduced in all development stages (p<0.01), with no difference between groups. Class II was corrected predominantly by dental changes in the mandibular arch, with accentuated proclination of the mandibular incisors and mesial displacement of mandibular molars. The MPA had no skeletal effects in any of the groups, except for a mild reduction of SNA (p=0.018) and ANB angles (p<0.0001) among the mixed dentition children. With regard to soft-tissue profile, facial convexity decreased significantly in all groups (p<0.01). In conclusion, the MPA associated with fixed appliance corrected the Class II occlusion, basically by a mandibular arch protrusion. A mild skeletal maxillary change was significant only when this treatment protocol began during mixed dentition.

show abstract

The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

True vertical validation in facial orthognathic surgery planning

True vertical validation in facial orthognathic surgery planning

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

Mandibular Protraction Appliance Effects in Class II Malocclusion in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About