Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8658782 |
Resumo: | Aim: This study aimed to compare the esthetic perceptionof profile silhouette of pictures of class II patients before andafter treatment (extractions or mandibular advancement),according to a visual analog scale (VAS) among orthodontists,general dentists and lay people. Methods: A presentation of 18class II adult patients silhouette was shown to three groups ofparticipants (25 orthodontists, 25 general dentists, and 25 laypeople) in two phases in an cross-sectional survey study. An initialpresentation pre-treatment and a second one post-treatment,one month later. The presentation consisted of nine pictures offour extractions orthodontic cases (two maxillary premolars andtwo mandibular premolars): five males, four females, and othernine pictures with a dentoalveolar mandibular advance (Forsus®and/or class II elastics): four males, five females. To comparepre and post-treatment scores, an ANOVA test was performed.Independent variables studied were: sex, age, and previousor present orthodontic treatment of participants. Results:A total of 75 of evaluators scored 18 patient profiles beforeand after treatment. In the three groups, the post treatmentsilhouette scored significantly higher. Advancement treatmentscored significantly higher than extractions, especially amonglay people. Orthodontist gave the lowers score regardless oftreatment. No differences were found between male and femalescoring (p>0.05). The participants between 30-39 years old gavehigher scores than other age groups(p<0,05). Conclusion: In oursample, class II orthodontic treatments did always improveesthetic perception of patients profile. Advancement treatmentachieved a better esthetic perception than extractions, especiallyamong lay people. |
id |
UNICAMP-8_6ce081c6944bc66b94f7def406a6df5f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8658782 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICAMP-8 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devicesOrthodonticsMalocclusion, Angle Class IIEstheticsCross-sectional studiesAim: This study aimed to compare the esthetic perceptionof profile silhouette of pictures of class II patients before andafter treatment (extractions or mandibular advancement),according to a visual analog scale (VAS) among orthodontists,general dentists and lay people. Methods: A presentation of 18class II adult patients silhouette was shown to three groups ofparticipants (25 orthodontists, 25 general dentists, and 25 laypeople) in two phases in an cross-sectional survey study. An initialpresentation pre-treatment and a second one post-treatment,one month later. The presentation consisted of nine pictures offour extractions orthodontic cases (two maxillary premolars andtwo mandibular premolars): five males, four females, and othernine pictures with a dentoalveolar mandibular advance (Forsus®and/or class II elastics): four males, five females. To comparepre and post-treatment scores, an ANOVA test was performed.Independent variables studied were: sex, age, and previousor present orthodontic treatment of participants. Results:A total of 75 of evaluators scored 18 patient profiles beforeand after treatment. In the three groups, the post treatmentsilhouette scored significantly higher. Advancement treatmentscored significantly higher than extractions, especially amonglay people. Orthodontist gave the lowers score regardless oftreatment. No differences were found between male and femalescoring (p>0.05). The participants between 30-39 years old gavehigher scores than other age groups(p<0,05). Conclusion: In oursample, class II orthodontic treatments did always improveesthetic perception of patients profile. Advancement treatmentachieved a better esthetic perception than extractions, especiallyamong lay people.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2020-11-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/865878210.20396/bjos.v19i0.8658782Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences; v. 19 (2020): Continuous PublicationBrazilian Journal of Oral Sciences; Vol. 19 (2020): Continuous Publication1677-3225reponame:Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPenghttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8658782/23207Spain; ContemporanyCopyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Journal of Oral Scienceshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCapdeville-Cazenave, PaulNieto Sánchez, Iván Diaz Renovales, Inésde la Cruz Pérez, Javier2021-02-08T13:06:05Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8658782Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/PUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/oaibrjorals@fop.unicamp.br||brjorals@fop.unicamp.br1677-32251677-3217opendoar:2021-02-08T13:06:05Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
title |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
spellingShingle |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices Capdeville-Cazenave, Paul Orthodontics Malocclusion, Angle Class II Esthetics Cross-sectional studies |
title_short |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
title_full |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
title_fullStr |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
title_full_unstemmed |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
title_sort |
Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices |
author |
Capdeville-Cazenave, Paul |
author_facet |
Capdeville-Cazenave, Paul Nieto Sánchez, Iván Diaz Renovales, Inés de la Cruz Pérez, Javier |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Nieto Sánchez, Iván Diaz Renovales, Inés de la Cruz Pérez, Javier |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Capdeville-Cazenave, Paul Nieto Sánchez, Iván Diaz Renovales, Inés de la Cruz Pérez, Javier |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Orthodontics Malocclusion, Angle Class II Esthetics Cross-sectional studies |
topic |
Orthodontics Malocclusion, Angle Class II Esthetics Cross-sectional studies |
description |
Aim: This study aimed to compare the esthetic perceptionof profile silhouette of pictures of class II patients before andafter treatment (extractions or mandibular advancement),according to a visual analog scale (VAS) among orthodontists,general dentists and lay people. Methods: A presentation of 18class II adult patients silhouette was shown to three groups ofparticipants (25 orthodontists, 25 general dentists, and 25 laypeople) in two phases in an cross-sectional survey study. An initialpresentation pre-treatment and a second one post-treatment,one month later. The presentation consisted of nine pictures offour extractions orthodontic cases (two maxillary premolars andtwo mandibular premolars): five males, four females, and othernine pictures with a dentoalveolar mandibular advance (Forsus®and/or class II elastics): four males, five females. To comparepre and post-treatment scores, an ANOVA test was performed.Independent variables studied were: sex, age, and previousor present orthodontic treatment of participants. Results:A total of 75 of evaluators scored 18 patient profiles beforeand after treatment. In the three groups, the post treatmentsilhouette scored significantly higher. Advancement treatmentscored significantly higher than extractions, especially amonglay people. Orthodontist gave the lowers score regardless oftreatment. No differences were found between male and femalescoring (p>0.05). The participants between 30-39 years old gavehigher scores than other age groups(p<0,05). Conclusion: In oursample, class II orthodontic treatments did always improveesthetic perception of patients profile. Advancement treatmentachieved a better esthetic perception than extractions, especiallyamong lay people. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-11-04 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion info:eu-repo/semantics/other |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8658782 10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8658782 |
url |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8658782 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8658782 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8658782/23207 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
Spain; Contemporany |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences; v. 19 (2020): Continuous Publication Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences; Vol. 19 (2020): Continuous Publication 1677-3225 reponame:Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) instacron:UNICAMP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
instacron_str |
UNICAMP |
institution |
UNICAMP |
reponame_str |
Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) |
collection |
Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
brjorals@fop.unicamp.br||brjorals@fop.unicamp.br |
_version_ |
1800216403052068864 |