Your browser doesn't support javascript.

Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde

Brasil

Home > Pesquisa > ()
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

Long-term profile attractiveness in Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions.

Mendes, Lucas Marzullo; Janson, Guilherme; Zingaretti Junqueira-Mendes, Cintia Helena; Garib, Daniela Gamba.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 155(3): 362-371, 2019 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30826039

INTRODUCTION:

This study evaluated the influence of Class II treatment protocols in profile attractiveness.

METHODS:

Sixty-eight patients with initial full Class II Division 1 malocclusion, orthodontically treated an average of 15 years before, and matched by sex, age, time after treatment, orthodontic outcomes, and overjet, were compared. Three groups were formed, according to the treatment protocol NE, nonextraction (n = 20; mean age 29.94 years, 15.62 years after treatment); 2E, 2-premolar extractions (n = 27; mean age 30.56 years, 15.09 years after treatment); and 4E, 4-premolar extractions (n = 21; mean age 32.29 years, 17.20 years after treatment). Cephalometric measurements and profile silhouettes were obtained from posttreatment and long-term posttreatment lateral cephalograms. With a 10-point numeric scale, 77 orthodontists and 77 laypeople rated profile attractiveness of each silhouette on a website.

RESULTS:

The raters' posttreatment and long-term posttreatment scores, respectively, were NE 4.76 and 4.32; 2E 5.35 and 5.08; and 4E 4.53 and 4.33.

CONCLUSIONS:

The posttreatment profile attractiveness was significantly higher in the 2E than in the 4E group, and in the NE group it was similar to the others. The long-term profile attractiveness in the 2E group was significantly greater compared with the NE and 4E groups.
Selo DaSilva