Long-term profile attractiveness of Class I and Class II malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions
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 t...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis de maestría |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
| Repositorio: | Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:teses.usp.br:tde-22062023-094227 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-22062023-094227/ |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | 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 |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|