C Q Nogueira, P Cotrin, D S Freitas, J E Prado de Souza, F P Valarelli, K M S Freitas, M R de Freitas
{"title":"Surgical and Camouflage Orthodontic Treatment of Anterior Open Bite: Comparison of Profile Attractiveness.","authors":"C Q Nogueira, P Cotrin, D S Freitas, J E Prado de Souza, F P Valarelli, K M S Freitas, M R de Freitas","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the profile's attractiveness between the different protocols for treating the anterior open bite.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The sample comprised 39 patients with anterior open bite treated with or without extractions, divided into two groups: The surgical group (G1) comprised 21 subjects (10 males, 11 females) with a mean initial age of 21.86 years (SD = 5.09), treated with fixed orthodontic appliance followed by orthognathic surgery, for a total mean period of 2.53 years (SD = 0.61). The mean overbite was -5.01 mm (SD = 2.50); The camouflaged group (G2) comprised 18 subjects (9 males, 9 females), with a mean initial age of 20.47 years (SD = 4.19), treated only with fixed orthodontic appliance, for a total mean period of 2.56 years (SD = 0.94). The mean overbite was -4.28 mm (SD = 1.15). Lateral photographs from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. These photographs were evaluated by 46 laypeople and 67 dentists, who rated the attractiveness of each profile from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with independent t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups presented improvement in the profile attractiveness with treatment (p < 0.001). Before treatment, the profile of the surgical group was significantly less attractive than the profile of the camouflaged group (p < 0.001). The surgical presented a more attractive profile at the final stage than the camouflaged group (p < 0.001). The surgical group showed a greater improvement in profile attractiveness with treatment than the camouflaged group (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the final stage, the surgical presented a more attractive and greater improvement in profile attractiveness than the camouflaged group. The laypeople and dentists judged similarly the initial profile attractiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the profile's attractiveness between the different protocols for treating the anterior open bite.
Methods: The sample comprised 39 patients with anterior open bite treated with or without extractions, divided into two groups: The surgical group (G1) comprised 21 subjects (10 males, 11 females) with a mean initial age of 21.86 years (SD = 5.09), treated with fixed orthodontic appliance followed by orthognathic surgery, for a total mean period of 2.53 years (SD = 0.61). The mean overbite was -5.01 mm (SD = 2.50); The camouflaged group (G2) comprised 18 subjects (9 males, 9 females), with a mean initial age of 20.47 years (SD = 4.19), treated only with fixed orthodontic appliance, for a total mean period of 2.56 years (SD = 0.94). The mean overbite was -4.28 mm (SD = 1.15). Lateral photographs from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. These photographs were evaluated by 46 laypeople and 67 dentists, who rated the attractiveness of each profile from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with independent t-tests.
Results: Both groups presented improvement in the profile attractiveness with treatment (p < 0.001). Before treatment, the profile of the surgical group was significantly less attractive than the profile of the camouflaged group (p < 0.001). The surgical presented a more attractive profile at the final stage than the camouflaged group (p < 0.001). The surgical group showed a greater improvement in profile attractiveness with treatment than the camouflaged group (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: In the final stage, the surgical presented a more attractive and greater improvement in profile attractiveness than the camouflaged group. The laypeople and dentists judged similarly the initial profile attractiveness.