Author:
Santori Federica,Masedu Francesco,Ciavarella Domenico,Staderini Edoardo,Chimenti Claudio,Tepedino Michele
Abstract
AbstractThe literature offers different perspectives for and against two-phase treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion. Facial attractiveness is an important aspect to take into account, given that children with skeletal Class II are often bullied by their peers and have low self-esteem and a lower social perception. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the aesthetic perception of facial profiles by a large number of observers, before and after treatment with a functional appliance, compared to untreated controls. The pre- and post-treatment cephalograms of 20 Class II subjects treated with Sander’s bite-jumping appliance and 20 untreated historical controls were collected and transformed into black and white silhouettes depicting only the lower third of the face. An online questionnaire comprising the silhouettes of the two groups, three “calibration” profiles and an “ideal” profile was submitted to dentists, orthodontists, undergraduates and laypeople, asking them to rate the profile’s attractiveness using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The effect of treatment, and observers’ age, expertise and gender were analysed. The calibration images and the ideal profiles were used to evaluate the coherence of each observer’s judgement. The protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee. Nine-hundred and ten questionnaires were collected. Treated subjects showed a larger improvement of facial attractiveness compared to controls. A significant effect of gender on the observer’s ratings was observed. Some observers showed incoherent judgement, which had a significant effect on the regression model. In conclusion, early treatment with functional appliances seems to improve patients’ facial aesthetics. This improvement is perceived equally by dental professionals and laypeople.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. McNamara, J. A. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 51, 177–202 (1981).
2. Kerr, W. J. & O’Donnell, J. M. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br. J. Orthod. 17, 299–304 (1990).
3. Cochrane, S., Cunningham, S. & Hunt, N. A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. Int. J. Adult Orthod. Orthognath. Surg. 14, 291–295 (1999).
4. Tung, A. W. & Kiyak, H. A. Psychological influences on the timing of orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 113, 29–39 (1998).
5. Chan, A., Antoun, J. S., Morgaine, K. C. & Farella, M. Accounts of bullying on Twitter in relation to dentofacial features and orthodontic treatment. J. Oral Rehabil. 44, 244–250 (2017).
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献