Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.06619
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

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

Associação entre os resultados estéticos normativos e percebidos 
pós-tratamento do retrognatismo mandibular

Glauco André MARQUES; Carolina Carmo de MENEZES; Giovana Cherubini VENEZIAN; José Fernando Castanha HENRIQUES; Silvia Amélia Scudeler VEDOVELLO; Viviane Veroni DEGAN

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.06619 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.48, e20190066, 2019
PDF
Downloads: 0
Views: 609

Abstract

Abstract: 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.

Keywords

Esthetics, beauty, orthodontics, orthopedics

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: Este estudo transversal buscou associar resultados cefalométricos normativos do tratamento do retrognatismo mandibular com melhora estética do perfil facial na percepção do paciente.

Objetivo: este estudo transversal buscou associar resultados cefalométricos normativos do tratamento do retrognatismo mandibular com melhora estética do perfil facial na percepção do paciente.

Material e método: Os resultados cefalométricos normativos obtidos em radiografias cefalométricas laterais de uma amostra de 24 pacientes com maloclusão de Classe II em fase de crescimento tratados com aparelho de avanço mandibular, foram avaliados comparando-se as grandezas pré e pós-tratamento. As mesmas radiografias foram utilizadas para gerar silhuetas negras padronizadas que foram dispostas aleatoriamente. Os pacientes foram instruídos a escolher seu perfil preferido e indicar quanta mudança foi percebida por meio de uma escala de Likert de 7 pontos. Os dados foram comparados com resultados cefalométricos aplicando-se metodologia de modelos mistos para medidas repetidas no tempo, teste t de student e teste t para variâncias heterogêneas, com nível de significância de 5%.

Resultado: 75% dos pacientes escolheram silhuetas pós-tratamento e a mudança foi percebida independentemente da escolha por pré ou pós-tratamento. Não houve diferença significativa entre as variáveis ​​cefalométricas dos traçados que deram origem às silhuetas consideradas melhores e piores após a avaliação.

Conclusão: Não houve associação entre os resultados cefalométricos pós-tratamento e a percepção da melhora estética por pacientes ortodônticos.
 

Palavras-chave

Estética, beleza, ortodontia, ortopedia

References

Bittencourt JM, Martins LP, Bendo CB, Vale MP, Paiva SM. Negative effect of malocclusion on the emotional and social well-being of Brazilian adolescents: a population-based study. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Nov;39(6):628-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx020. PMid:28371848.

Badran SA. The effect of malocclusion and self-perceived aesthetics on the self-esteem of a sample of Jordanian adolescents. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Dec;32(6):638-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq014. PMid:20403957.

Torsello F, Graci M, Grande NM, Deli R. Relationships between facial features in the perception of profile attractiveness. Prog Orthod. 2010;11(2):92-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pio.2010.04.002. PMid:20974445.

Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983 Jul;84(1):1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90144-6. PMid:6575614.

Yang X, Zhu Y, Long H, Zhou Y, Jian F, Ye N, et al. The effectiveness of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusion: a meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016 Jun;38(3):324-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv057. PMid:26306822.

Rego MV, Martinez EF, Coelho RM, Leal LM, Thiesen G. Perception of changes in soft-tissue profile after Herbst appliance treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Mar;151(3):559-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.028. PMid:28257740.

Paula ECM, Conti ACCF, Siqueira DF, Valarelli DP, Almeida-Pedrin RR. Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Feb;151(2):311-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.038. PMid:28153160.

Oh HS, Korn EL, Zhang X, Liu Y, Xu T, Boyd R, et al. Correlations between cephalometric and photographic measurements of facial attractiveness in Chinese and US patients after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Dec;136(6):762.e1-14, discussion 762-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.020. PMid:19962590.

Salmória I, Furtado A, Rosário HD, Furtado GC, Paranhos LR. Análise facial de arnett e Bergman comparada a percepção estética de leigos e cirurgiões-dentistas (clínicos gerais e ortodontistas). Biosci J. 2014 Jan-Feb;30(1):297-303.

Mann KR, Marshall SD, Qian F, Southard KA, Southard TE. Effect of maxillary anteroposterior position on profile esthetics in headgear-treated patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):228-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.04.031. PMid:21300252.

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 Apr;125(4):457-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.004. PMid:15067262.

Marchiori GE, Sodre LO, da Cunha TC, Torres FC, Rosario HD, Paranhos LR. Pleasantness of facial profile and its correlation with soft tissue cephalometric parameters: perception of orthodontists and lay people. Eur J Dent. 2015 Jul-Sep;9(3):352-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.163323. PMid:26430362.

Moro A, Fuziy A, Freitas MR, Henriques JFC, Janson GRP. Descrição passo-a-passo do aparelho de Herbst com coroas de aço superiores e “Splint” removível inferior. Rev Dental Press Ortodon Ortop Maxilar. 2001 Maio-Jun;6(3):55-62.

Perinetti G, Contardo L, Castaldo A, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. Diagnostic reliability of the cervical vertebral maturation method and standing height in the identification of the mandibular growth spurt. Angle Orthod. 2016 Jul;86(4):599-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/072415-499.1. PMid:26600421.

Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng’ang’a PM, Rugh JD, et al. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for softtissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4 Suppl):S87-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.019. PMid:19362272.

Santos PR, Meneghim MC, Ambrosano GM, Filho MV, Vedovello SA. Influence of quality of life, self-perception, and self-esteem on orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jan;151(1):143-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.028. PMid:28024768.

Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Soft tissue changes with fixed functional appliances in Class II division 1. Angle Orthod. 2006 Jul;76(4):712-20. PMid:16808582.

Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016 Apr;38(2):113-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv034. PMid:25995359.

Kinzinger GSM, Lisson JA, Frye L, Gross U, Hourfar J. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: functional mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):293-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2111-5. PMid:28365810.

Rudee DA. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod. 1964 Jun;50(6):421-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(64)90205-2.

Enlow D, Hans M. Essentials of facial growth. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: Needham Press; 2008. 504 p.

Ruf S, Pancherz H. When is the ideal period for Herbst therapy - early or late? Semin Orthod. 2003 Mar;9(1):47-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/sodo.2003.34024.

Kissler J, Bäuml KH. Effects of the beholder’s age on the perception of facial attractiveness. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 May;104(2):145-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00018-4. PMid:10900703.

Vingilis-Jaremko L, Maurer D. The influence of averageness on children’s judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Child Psychol. 2013 Aug;115(4):624-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.014. PMid:23708730.

Cooper PA, Geldart SS, Mondloch CJ, Maurer D. Developmental changes in perceptions of attractiveness: a role of experience? Dev Sci. 2006 Sep;9(5):530-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00520.x. PMid:16911455.
 

5d7fc9e40e8825415abbec01 rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Electronic)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2024 All rights reserved.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections