Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the facial profile attractiveness of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics. Methods: Sample comprised 47 Class II patients divided into two groups: G1) TWIN FORCE - 25 patients treated with fixed appliances and Twin Force® fixed functional appliance (mean initial age was 17.91 ± 7.13 years, mean final age was 20.45 ± 7.18 years, and mean treatment time was 2.53 ± 0.83 years); G2) ELASTICS - 22 patients treated with fixed appliances and Class II intermaxillary elastics (mean initial age was 15.87 ± 5.64 years, mean final age was 18.63 ± 5.79 years and mean treatment time was 2.75 ± 0.60 years). Lateral cephalograms from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. Cephalometric variables were measured and silhouettes of facial profile were constructed and evaluated by 48 laypeople and 63 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney and independent t-tests. Results: At pretreatment, facial profile of the Twin Force® group was less attractive than the Elastics group. Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics resulted in similar facial profile attractiveness, but the facial convexity was more reduced in the Twin Force® group. Orthodontists were more critical than laypeople. Conclusions: Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics produced similar facial profile attractiveness at posttreatment. Profile attractiveness was reduced with treatment in the elastic group, and improved in the Twin Force® group. Facial convexity was more reduced with treatment in the Twin Force® group.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: POZZA,Otávio Augusto, CANÇADO,Rodrigo Hermont, VALARELLI,Fabricio Pinelli, FREITAS,Karina Maria Salvatore, OLIVEIRA,Renata Cristina, OLIVEIRA,Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Dental Press International 2021
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512021000500300
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S2176-94512021000500300
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S2176-945120210005003002021-10-26Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elasticsPOZZA,Otávio AugustoCANÇADO,Rodrigo HermontVALARELLI,Fabricio PinelliFREITAS,Karina Maria SalvatoreOLIVEIRA,Renata CristinaOLIVEIRA,Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Malocclusion, Angle Class II Comparative study Esthetics ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the facial profile attractiveness of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics. Methods: Sample comprised 47 Class II patients divided into two groups: G1) TWIN FORCE - 25 patients treated with fixed appliances and Twin Force® fixed functional appliance (mean initial age was 17.91 ± 7.13 years, mean final age was 20.45 ± 7.18 years, and mean treatment time was 2.53 ± 0.83 years); G2) ELASTICS - 22 patients treated with fixed appliances and Class II intermaxillary elastics (mean initial age was 15.87 ± 5.64 years, mean final age was 18.63 ± 5.79 years and mean treatment time was 2.75 ± 0.60 years). Lateral cephalograms from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. Cephalometric variables were measured and silhouettes of facial profile were constructed and evaluated by 48 laypeople and 63 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney and independent t-tests. Results: At pretreatment, facial profile of the Twin Force® group was less attractive than the Elastics group. Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics resulted in similar facial profile attractiveness, but the facial convexity was more reduced in the Twin Force® group. Orthodontists were more critical than laypeople. Conclusions: Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics produced similar facial profile attractiveness at posttreatment. Profile attractiveness was reduced with treatment in the elastic group, and improved in the Twin Force® group. Facial convexity was more reduced with treatment in the Twin Force® group.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDental Press InternationalDental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.26 n.5 20212021-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512021000500300en10.1590/2177-6709.26.5.e212014.oar
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author POZZA,Otávio Augusto
CANÇADO,Rodrigo Hermont
VALARELLI,Fabricio Pinelli
FREITAS,Karina Maria Salvatore
OLIVEIRA,Renata Cristina
OLIVEIRA,Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de
spellingShingle POZZA,Otávio Augusto
CANÇADO,Rodrigo Hermont
VALARELLI,Fabricio Pinelli
FREITAS,Karina Maria Salvatore
OLIVEIRA,Renata Cristina
OLIVEIRA,Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de
Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
author_facet POZZA,Otávio Augusto
CANÇADO,Rodrigo Hermont
VALARELLI,Fabricio Pinelli
FREITAS,Karina Maria Salvatore
OLIVEIRA,Renata Cristina
OLIVEIRA,Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de
author_sort POZZA,Otávio Augusto
title Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
title_short Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
title_full Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
title_fullStr Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
title_full_unstemmed Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics
title_sort attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of class ii patients treated with twin force® or intermaxillary elastics
description ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the facial profile attractiveness of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics. Methods: Sample comprised 47 Class II patients divided into two groups: G1) TWIN FORCE - 25 patients treated with fixed appliances and Twin Force® fixed functional appliance (mean initial age was 17.91 ± 7.13 years, mean final age was 20.45 ± 7.18 years, and mean treatment time was 2.53 ± 0.83 years); G2) ELASTICS - 22 patients treated with fixed appliances and Class II intermaxillary elastics (mean initial age was 15.87 ± 5.64 years, mean final age was 18.63 ± 5.79 years and mean treatment time was 2.75 ± 0.60 years). Lateral cephalograms from pretreatment and posttreatment were used. Cephalometric variables were measured and silhouettes of facial profile were constructed and evaluated by 48 laypeople and 63 orthodontists, rating the attractiveness from 0 (most unattractive profile) to 10 (most attractive profile). Intergroup comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney and independent t-tests. Results: At pretreatment, facial profile of the Twin Force® group was less attractive than the Elastics group. Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics resulted in similar facial profile attractiveness, but the facial convexity was more reduced in the Twin Force® group. Orthodontists were more critical than laypeople. Conclusions: Treatment with Twin Force® or Class II elastics produced similar facial profile attractiveness at posttreatment. Profile attractiveness was reduced with treatment in the elastic group, and improved in the Twin Force® group. Facial convexity was more reduced with treatment in the Twin Force® group.
publisher Dental Press International
publishDate 2021
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512021000500300
work_keys_str_mv AT pozzaotavioaugusto attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
AT cancadorodrigohermont attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
AT valarellifabriciopinelli attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
AT freitaskarinamariasalvatore attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
AT oliveirarenatacristina attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
AT oliveiraricardocesargobbide attractivenessofthefacialprofilecomparisonofclassiipatientstreatedwithtwinforceorintermaxillaryelastics
_version_ 1756439069416488960