Nogueira C Q, Cotrin P, Freitas D S, Prado de Souza J E, Valarelli F P, Freitas K M S, de Freitas M R
Department of Orthodontics. Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Orthodontics, Ingá University Center UNINGÁ, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2025 Feb;28(1):187-195. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12861. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
To evaluate the profile's attractiveness between the different protocols for treating the anterior open bite.
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.
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).
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.
评估不同治疗前牙开(牙合)方案侧面轮廓的吸引力。
样本包括39例接受或未接受拔牙治疗的前牙开(牙合)患者,分为两组:手术组(G1)包括21名受试者(10名男性,11名女性),初始平均年龄21.86岁(标准差=5.09),先用固定正畸矫治器治疗,随后接受正颌手术,总平均疗程2.53年(标准差=0.61)。平均覆(牙合)为-5.01mm(标准差=2.50);掩饰组(G2)包括18名受试者(9名男性,9名女性),初始平均年龄20.47岁(标准差=4.19),仅用固定正畸矫治器治疗,总平均疗程2.56年(标准差=0.94)。平均覆(牙合)为-4.28mm(标准差=1.15)。使用治疗前和治疗后的侧面照片。这些照片由46名外行人及67名牙医进行评估,他们对每个侧面轮廓的吸引力从0(最不具吸引力的轮廓)到10(最具吸引力的轮廓)进行评分。采用独立t检验进行组间比较。
两组治疗后侧面轮廓吸引力均有改善(p<0.001)。治疗前,手术组的侧面轮廓吸引力明显低于掩饰组(p<0.001)。手术组在最后阶段的侧面轮廓比掩饰组更具吸引力(p<0.001)。手术组治疗后侧面轮廓吸引力的改善程度大于掩饰组(p<0.001)。
在最后阶段,手术组的侧面轮廓比掩饰组更具吸引力且改善程度更大。外行人与牙医对初始侧面轮廓吸引力的判断相似。