Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
Texto Completo: | https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-22062023-094227/ |
Resumo: | Objective: To compare the profile attractiveness in subjects treated with and without extractions after the long-term 35-year follow-up, according to laypeople, dentists, and orthodontists. Methods: Forty patients with Class I and Class II malocclusion, were divided into 2 groups, according to the treatment protocol: Extraction group, extractions of 4 premolars (n=24); with mean pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and long-term posttreatment (T3) ages of 13.13, 15.50 and 49.56 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 2.37 years, and the long-term follow-up (T3-T2) was 34.19 years; Nonextraction group (n=16); with mean ages at T1, T2, and T3 of 13.21, 15.07 and 50.32 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 1.86 years, and the mean long-term follow-up evaluation time (T3-T2) was 35.25 years. Lateral cephalograms were used to perform profile facial silhouettes constructed and an online evaluation was realized by 72 laypeople, 63 dentists, and 65 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). The intragroup comparison was performed with the repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey tests. Intergroup comparison was performed with t tests, one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Results: The extraction group presented a greater treatment time than the nonextraction group. At the pretreatment and posttreatment stages, the extraction and nonextraction groups presented similar profile attractiveness. At the long-term posttreatment follow-up, the nonextraction group presented a greater profile attractiveness than the extraction group. Laypeople and dentists were more critical than orthodontics. Conclusions: Nonextraction profile silhouettes are more attractive than extraction profiles after 35-year posttreatment. |
id |
USP_ed030df8a371ae69ff0137e16897dc73 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:teses.usp.br:tde-22062023-094227 |
network_acronym_str |
USP |
network_name_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
repository_id_str |
2721 |
spelling |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractionsAtratividade de perfil em longo prazo de pacientes com má oclusão Classe I e Classe II tratados com e sem extraçõesAngle Class I malocclusionAngle Class II malocclusionEstéticaEstheticsExtração dentariaMá oclusão de Classe I de AngleMá oclusão de Classe II de AngleTooth extractionObjective: To compare the profile attractiveness in subjects treated with and without extractions after the long-term 35-year follow-up, according to laypeople, dentists, and orthodontists. Methods: Forty patients with Class I and Class II malocclusion, were divided into 2 groups, according to the treatment protocol: Extraction group, extractions of 4 premolars (n=24); with mean pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and long-term posttreatment (T3) ages of 13.13, 15.50 and 49.56 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 2.37 years, and the long-term follow-up (T3-T2) was 34.19 years; Nonextraction group (n=16); with mean ages at T1, T2, and T3 of 13.21, 15.07 and 50.32 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 1.86 years, and the mean long-term follow-up evaluation time (T3-T2) was 35.25 years. Lateral cephalograms were used to perform profile facial silhouettes constructed and an online evaluation was realized by 72 laypeople, 63 dentists, and 65 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). The intragroup comparison was performed with the repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey tests. Intergroup comparison was performed with t tests, one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Results: The extraction group presented a greater treatment time than the nonextraction group. At the pretreatment and posttreatment stages, the extraction and nonextraction groups presented similar profile attractiveness. At the long-term posttreatment follow-up, the nonextraction group presented a greater profile attractiveness than the extraction group. Laypeople and dentists were more critical than orthodontics. Conclusions: Nonextraction profile silhouettes are more attractive than extraction profiles after 35-year posttreatment.Objetivo: Comparar a atratividade do perfil em indivíduos tratados com e sem extrações após 35 anos de acompanhamento de longo prazo, segundo leigos, dentistas e ortodontistas. Métodos: Quarenta pacientes com má oclusão de Classe I e Classe II, foram divididos em 2 grupos, de acordo com o protocolo de tratamento: Grupo Extração, extrações de 4 pré-molares (n=24); com idade média pré-tratamento (T1), pós-tratamento (T2) e pós-tratamento de longo prazo (T3) de 13,13, 15,50 e 49,56 anos, respectivamente. O tempo médio de tratamento (T2-T1) foi de 2,37 anos e o acompanhamento de longo prazo (T3-T2) foi de 34,19 anos; Grupo Sem Extração (n=16); com médias de idade em T1, T2 e T3 de 13,21, 15,07 e 50,32 anos, respectivamente. O tempo médio de tratamento (T2-T1) foi de 1,86 anos, e o tempo médio de avaliação de acompanhamento de longo prazo (T3-T2) foi de 35,25 anos. Telerradiografias laterais foram usadas para realizar silhuetas faciais de perfil e um questionário on-line foi aplicado para 72 leigos, 63 dentistas e 65 ortodontistas, avaliando a atratividade com notas de 1 (menos atraente) a 10 (mais atraente). A comparação intragrupo foi realizada com os testes ANOVA de medidas repetidas e Tukey. A comparação intergrupos foi realizada com testes t, ANOVA a um critério e teste de Tukey. Resultados: O grupo extração apresentou um tempo de tratamento maior que o grupo não extração. Nas fases de pré-tratamento, pós-tratamento e pós-tratamento de longo prazo, os grupos extração e não extração apresentaram atratividade de perfil semelhante. Leigos e dentistas foram mais críticos do que os ortodontistas. Conclusões: Após 35 anos de pós-tratamento, a atratividade do perfil foi semelhante em pacientes tratados com e sem extrações.Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USPFreitas, Marcos Roberto deBravo Vallejo, Gabriel Eduardo 2023-03-24info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttps://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-22062023-094227/reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USPinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPReter o conteúdo por motivos de patente, publicação e/ou direitos autoriais.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesseng2024-08-02T16:31:02Zoai:teses.usp.br:tde-22062023-094227Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttp://www.teses.usp.br/PUBhttp://www.teses.usp.br/cgi-bin/mtd2br.plvirginia@if.usp.br|| atendimento@aguia.usp.br||virginia@if.usp.bropendoar:27212024-08-02T16:31:02Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions Atratividade de perfil em longo prazo de pacientes com má oclusão Classe I e Classe II tratados com e sem extrações |
title |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
spellingShingle |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions Bravo Vallejo, Gabriel Eduardo Angle Class I malocclusion Angle Class II malocclusion Estética Esthetics Extração dentaria Má oclusão de Classe I de Angle Má oclusão de Classe II de Angle Tooth extraction |
title_short |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
title_full |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
title_fullStr |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
title_full_unstemmed |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
title_sort |
Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions |
author |
Bravo Vallejo, Gabriel Eduardo |
author_facet |
Bravo Vallejo, Gabriel Eduardo |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Freitas, Marcos Roberto de |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Bravo Vallejo, Gabriel Eduardo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Angle Class I malocclusion Angle Class II malocclusion Estética Esthetics Extração dentaria Má oclusão de Classe I de Angle Má oclusão de Classe II de Angle Tooth extraction |
topic |
Angle Class I malocclusion Angle Class II malocclusion Estética Esthetics Extração dentaria Má oclusão de Classe I de Angle Má oclusão de Classe II de Angle Tooth extraction |
description |
Objective: To compare the profile attractiveness in subjects treated with and without extractions after the long-term 35-year follow-up, according to laypeople, dentists, and orthodontists. Methods: Forty patients with Class I and Class II malocclusion, were divided into 2 groups, according to the treatment protocol: Extraction group, extractions of 4 premolars (n=24); with mean pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and long-term posttreatment (T3) ages of 13.13, 15.50 and 49.56 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 2.37 years, and the long-term follow-up (T3-T2) was 34.19 years; Nonextraction group (n=16); with mean ages at T1, T2, and T3 of 13.21, 15.07 and 50.32 years, respectively. The mean treatment time (T2-T1) was 1.86 years, and the mean long-term follow-up evaluation time (T3-T2) was 35.25 years. Lateral cephalograms were used to perform profile facial silhouettes constructed and an online evaluation was realized by 72 laypeople, 63 dentists, and 65 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). The intragroup comparison was performed with the repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey tests. Intergroup comparison was performed with t tests, one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Results: The extraction group presented a greater treatment time than the nonextraction group. At the pretreatment and posttreatment stages, the extraction and nonextraction groups presented similar profile attractiveness. At the long-term posttreatment follow-up, the nonextraction group presented a greater profile attractiveness than the extraction group. Laypeople and dentists were more critical than orthodontics. Conclusions: Nonextraction profile silhouettes are more attractive than extraction profiles after 35-year posttreatment. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-03-24 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
format |
masterThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-22062023-094227/ |
url |
https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-22062023-094227/ |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Reter o conteúdo por motivos de patente, publicação e/ou direitos autoriais. info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Reter o conteúdo por motivos de patente, publicação e/ou direitos autoriais. |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
collection |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
virginia@if.usp.br|| atendimento@aguia.usp.br||virginia@if.usp.br |
_version_ |
1815257273521405952 |