Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances

To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 1...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Angle orthodontist 2020-07, Vol.90 (4), p.571-577
Hauptverfasser: Moresca, Alexa Helena Kohler, de Moraes, Nathaly Dias, Topolski, Francielle, Flores-Mir, Carlos, Moro, Alexandre, Moresca, Ricardo Cesar, Correr, Gisele Maria
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons ( = .017) and orthodontists ( = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles ( = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus ( = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists ( = .047). Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.
ISSN:0003-3219
1945-7103
DOI:10.2319/052719-362.1