Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

Evaluation of facial pleasantness in patients with complete and unilateral cleft lip and palate rehabilitated and submitted to orofacial harmonization

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present prospective case control study was to evaluate the facial pleasantness of patients with complete and unilateral cleft lip and palate at the end of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, submitted to facial fillers based on hyaluronic acid.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 18 individuals with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, aged between 18 and 40 years (mean age 29 years) of both sexes. The patients presented a concave profile with mild to moderate maxillary deficiency, with completed orthodontic treatment and conducted by means of dentoalveolar compensations without orthognathic surgery. Participants underwent facial filling procedures with hyaluronic acid (HA) in the midface, inserted by a single operator. Standard photographs in frontal norm at rest, right profile at rest, and left profile at rest were obtained from each patient at the following operative times: (T1) pre-filler and (T2) and one-month post-filler. The photographs in T1 and T2 were randomly placed on a page of a virtual album. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess facial pleasantness. The photographs were evaluated by two groups of evaluators consisting of 18 individuals with cleft lip and palate (CLPG=18) and 18 orthodontists with experience in the treatment of clefts (OG=18). For comparison between phases T1 and T2, and between evaluators with orofacial clefts and orthodontists, the Wilcoxon test was used (p<0,05).

RESULTS

People with cleft lip and palate rated their face as more pleasant after the midface filling procedure. In the perception of the orthodontists, on the other hand, the facial pleasantness remained similar after the facial filling procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The filling of the middle third of the face in patients with cleft lip and palate treated without orthognathic surgery increased the pleasantness of the face in the opinion of laypeople with cleft lip and palate.

Oropharynx and hyoid bone changes in female extraction patients with distinct sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns: a retrospective study

Background

Previous studies have reported inconsistent effects of premolar extraction on the oropharynx and hyoid bones. Currently, no strong evidence is available regarding the effect of extraction on upper airway size. Hence, the aim of this study was to analyse the effects of first premolar extraction on the oropharynx and hyoid bone positions in female adult patients, and further explored differences in oropharynx and hyoid bone changes among skeletal patterns.

Methods

The study population included 40 female adult patients who did not undergo extraction and 120 female adult patients who underwent extraction of four premolars; the including patients had four distinct sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed before (T0) and after (T1) orthodontic treatment. Eight oropharynx variables and five hyoid bone variables were measured using Dolphin 3D Imaging software. Paired and independent t-tests were used to analyse measurements between timepoints and groups, respectively.

Results

The oropharynx volume increased significantly in the extraction group; changes did not differ significantly between extraction and non-extraction groups. Oropharynx variables did not differ significantly at T0 among the four skeletal pattern groups. After orthodontic extraction treatment, the oropharynx volume increased significantly in the class I-norm and class I-hyper subgroups, but not in the class II-norm and class II-hyper subgroups. Significant increases were observed in the oropharynx volume and most constricted axial area from T0 to T1 in the moderate retraction group, but not in the maximum retraction group. Extraction patients exhibited significant posterior movement of the hyoid, particularly among maximum retraction patients.

Conclusions

In female adult patients, first premolar extraction tends to increase the oropharynx size and cause posterior movement of the hyoid bone, particularly in skeletal class I patients. For skeletal class II and hyperdivergent patients with a narrow oropharynx, first premolar extraction does not negatively influence oropharynx size or hyoid bone position. The differences of oropharyngeal changes between moderate retraction patients and maximum retraction patients were not significant.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13005-022-00334-1.

The effect of orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Facial and smile attractiveness are significant motivating factor for patients to seek orthodontic treatment. Although there is a general belief that orthodontic treatment improves facial appearance, this has yet not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the current evidence on the effect of orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

Systematic and unrestricted search of nine databases were performed up to January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating facial attractiveness before and after orthodontic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extracted data included study design and setting, sample size and demographics, malocclusion type, treatment modality, and method for outcome assessment. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies and with RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in data synthesis; three randomized controlled clinical trials and 17 non-randomized clinical studies of retrospective or prospective design. One of the RCTs was found to have low risk of bias, one presented some concerns and the third showed a high risk of bias. All non-randomized studies showed either unclear or high risk of bias. Data syntheses showed that orthodontic treatment improved facial attractiveness ratings by 9% when compared with untreated controls (MD: 9.05/95% CI: 4.71; 13.39). A combination of orthodontics and orthognathic surgery also showed a positive effect of 5.5% (MD: 5.51/95% CI: 1.55; 9.47) when compared with orthodontic treatment alone. There was no difference in effect between extraction and non-extraction treatments (MD: -0.89/ 95% CI: -8.72; 6.94) or between different types of Class II correctors (MD: 2.21/95% CI: -16.51; 20.93).

LIMITATIONS

With the exception of two RCTs, included studies were of unclear or low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic treatment has a clinically weak effect on facial attractiveness when compared to no treatment. The same is true when a combined orthodontic/surgical treatment is compared to orthodontics alone.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42020169904.

Soft tissue profile changes during treatment of patients with Class II malocclusion

Introduction/Objective. The class II malocclusion results in disbalanced facial harmony, primarily noticeable in the profile and the lower facial third. Aside from skeletal evaluation, orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning should include facial soft tissue analysis. The aim of the study was to identify the soft tissue profile outcomes of orthodontic treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion patients and to determine if these changes are related with the different treatment protocol. Methods. The first group was the non-extraction group (25 patients) treated first with the Herbst appliance, and the second group was four premolars extraction group (25 patients) treated with a multibracket appliance. The patients? cephalograms and pre- and post-treatment profile photographs were used. Results. The improvement in the non-extraction group was evident in the decrease of the nasomental angle, the angle representing the projection of the upper lip to the chin, as well as the upper lip angle. In the extraction group, the nasolabial angle showed a significant increase. Soft tissue variables showed significant differences between the groups: the total facial angle or facial convexity including the nose and the angle presenting the projection of the upper lip to chin. Conclusion. The patients treated without extractions showed a significant improvement of the convex profile and favorable soft tissue changes in the lower third of the face.