The esthetic profile preferences of Class II malocclusion patients treated with extraction or non-extraction

Autores

  • Victor de Miranda Ladewig Universidade Sagrado Coração, Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Biologia Oral. SP, Brasil http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-1299
  • Milena Fabri Sanches Trecenti Centro Odontológico Rodrigues de Almeida. SP, Brazil
  • Renata Rodrigues Almeida Pedrin Universidade Sagrado Coração, Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Biologia Oral. SP, Brasil
  • Marcio Rodrigues Almeida Universidade Norte do Paraná, Progrma de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Odontologia, PR, Brasi
  • Ana Claudia de Castro Ferreira Conti Universidade Norte do Paraná, Progrma de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Odontologia, PR, Brasi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17921/2447-8938.2018v20n3p179-184

Resumo

Abstract

The treatment of Class II can have a positive or a negative impact on the facial profile aesthetic. The present study aims to evaluate the impact of two methods of orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion on the facial profile aesthetics. The facial profiles of 46 patients with Class II malocclusion were outlined by radiography before and after treatment; 23 of the patients were treated by the extraction of two maxillary first premolars (EXT group), and the other 23, with the Thurow Appliance (TA group), followed by braces. The profile silhouettes were filled in using the Corel Draw program. An album containing the patient’s silhouettes of both groups was created randomly, with two profiles of a patient per page. The preferences of 30 orthodontists, 30 dentists, and 30 laypersons in relation to the profile were recorded along with their perceived differences between the pre-treatment and post-treatment profiles, according to the visual analog scale. All groups of evaluators preferred the post-treatment profile more frequently. There were statistically significant differences in the evaluators’ preferences only between the orthodontists’ and the laypersons’ groups. None of the evaluators’ groups indicated substantial differences between the pre-treatment and post-treatment profiles. It may be concluded that both Class II treatment protocols, i.e., the double-extraction of the first premolars and the use of TA, improved the patients’ facial profile aesthetics.

Keywords: Face. Malocclusion, Angle Class II. Tooth Extraction.

Resumo

As modalidades de tratamentos da Classe II tem um impacto sobre a estética da face que pode ser positivo ou negativo. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o impacto da estética do perfil facial decorrente de dois tipos de tratamento para a Classe II. Foram traçados os perfis faciais das telerradiografias pré e pós-tratamento de 46 pacientes Classe II, sendo 23 de um grupo tratado com extração de dois primeiros pré-molares superiores e 23 de um grupo tratado com AEB Conjugado seguido de aparelho fixo, e estes traçados foram preenchidos com o programa Corel Draw. Foi montado um álbum com as silhuetas dos pacientes (AEB e EXO) de forma aleatória, sendo dois perfis em cada folha do mesmo paciente. Foi pedido para 30 ortodontistas, 30 cirurgiões-dentistas e 30 leigos para verificarem a sua preferência em relação ao perfil e a quantidade de diferença entre os perfis pré e pós-tratamento, de acordo com a escala analógica visual. Os 3 grupos de avaliadores preferiram o perfil pós-tratamento com maior frequência. Houve diferenças estatisticamente significantes somente entre os grupos de avaliadores ortodontistas e leigos; os 3 grupos de avaliadores indicaram que os perfis pré e pós-tratamento, não diferiram substancialmente. Pode-se concluir que o tratamento da Classe II, com extração de dois primeiros pré-molares, e com o uso do aparelho AEB Conjugado produziu um impacto positivo na estética do perfil.

Palavras-chave: Face. Má Oclusão de Angle Classe II. Extração Dentária. 

Referências

Rathod AB, Araujo E, Vaden JL, Behrent RG, Oliver DR. Extraction vs no treatment: long-term facial profile changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147(5):596-603. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.018

Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(2):324-31. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.045

Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(5):464-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/ mod.2001.113656

Huang YP, Li WR. Correlation between objective and subjective evaluation of profile in bimaxillary protrusion patients after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2015;85(4):690-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/070714476.1

Pithon MM, Lacerda-Santos R, Oliveira DL, Alves JV, Britto JP, Souza ES, et al. Esthetics perception of facial profile after treatment the Thurow appliance. Braz Oral Res 2015;29(1):17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015. vol29.0043

Almeida-Pedrin RR, Almeida MR, Almeida RR, Pinzan A, Ferreira FPC. Treatment effects of headgear biteplane and bionator appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:191-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ajodo.2005.07.030

Conley RS, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in Class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod 2006;76(1):59-65. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0059:STCAUP]2.0.CO;2

Cozza P, Marino A, Franchi L. A nonsurgical approach to treatment of high-angle Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2008;78(3):553-560. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/052307248.1

Firous M, Zernik J, Nanda R. Dental and orthopedic effects of high-pull headgear in treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:197-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S08895406(05)81053-4

Tadic N, Woods MG. Incisal and Soft Tissue Effects of Maxillary Premolar Extraction in Class II Treatment. Angle Orthod 2007;77(5):808-16. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.2319/081706-336

Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95(3):220-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90052-8

Zierhut EC, Joondeph DR, Artun J, Little RM. Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2000;70(3):208-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1043/00033219(2000)070<0208:LTPCAW>2.0.CO;2

Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(1):28-37. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70154-0

Young TM, Smith RJ. Effects of orthodontics on the facial profile: a comparison of changes during nonextraction and four premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103(5):452-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0889-5406(05)81796-2

Almeida-Pedrin RR, Guimarães LBM, Almeida MR, Almeida RR, Ferreira FPC. Assessment of facial profile changes in patients treated with maxillary premolar extractions. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17(5):131-7. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000500018

Bowman SJ, Johnston LE. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod 2000; 70(1):3-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1043/00033219(2000)070<0003:TEIOEA>2.0.CO;2

Sloss EAC, Southard KA, Qian F, Stock SE, Mann KR, Meyer DL, Southard TE. Comparision of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbs appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(4):509-14. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.050

Stephens CK, Boley JC, Behrents RG, Alexander RG, Buschang PH. Long-term profile changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128(4):450-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ajodo.2004.04.034

O`Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118(4):371-6. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.109492.

Mergen JL, Southard KA, Dawson DV, Fogle LL, Casko JS, Southard TE. Treatment outcomes of growing Class II Division 1 patients with varying degrees of anteroposterior and vertical dysplasias, part 2. Profile silhouette evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(4):457-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889540604000320

Shelly AD, Southard TE, Southard KA, Casko JS, Jakobsen JR, Fridrich KL, et al. Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;111(6):630-7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70171-5

Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000; 118(5):514-525. doi: https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.109102

Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1985;88(5):402-8. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90067-3

Orsini MG, Huang GJ, Kiyak HA Ramsay DS, Bollen A, Anderson NK, et al. Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the anteroposterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(3):283-91. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.026

Knight H, Keith O. Ranking facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthodontics 2005;27(4):340-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ ejo/cji042

Keer WJ, O’Donnel JM. Panel perceprion of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17(4):229-304.

Downloads

Publicado

2018-09-30

Edição

Seção

Artigos