IADR Abstract Archives
Skeletal, Dental and Smile Esthetic Changes in Skeletal Class II patients Treated with Maxillary Premolar Extraction and Non-extraction Mechanotherapy – A Cross-sectional Study
Objectives: An esthetic smile plays a significant role in lifting a person’s confidence, which improves social interaction, and leads to an improved quality of life. This study aimed to compare smile esthetics in skeletal class II subjects who underwent fixed appliance therapy with maxillary premolar extraction (PME) and those who opted for treatment with intermaxillary elastics (NEF). The secondary objective was to evaluate the perception of esthetic smiles among three panels of raters, including laypersons, general dentists and orthodontists.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 36 skeletal class II subjects equally ideally planned for PME. Nine smile variables were measured on pre-and post-treatment frontal close-up smile photographs of two groups. Ten laypersons, general dentists and orthodontists evaluated those photographs on a visual analogue scale. An Independent t-test was applied to compare the post-treatment smile variables and scores between PME and NEF. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the factors associated with an esthetic smile.
Results: In a comparison of post-treatment photographs between the groups, a statistically significant difference was found in the values of arch form index (AFI) (p = 0.01) and overjet (p = 0.006). A statistically significant difference was observed in the perception of smile esthetics among the raters (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Patients ideally planned for maxillary premolar extraction when treated with non-extraction fixed mechanotherapy using class II elastics did result in dental and soft tissue improvement but were not able to achieve ideal values at the end of treatment. Laypersons and dentists preferred smile esthetics in maxillary first premolar extraction treatment, whereas orthodontists gave higher scores to non-extraction fixed mechanotherapy.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 36 skeletal class II subjects equally ideally planned for PME. Nine smile variables were measured on pre-and post-treatment frontal close-up smile photographs of two groups. Ten laypersons, general dentists and orthodontists evaluated those photographs on a visual analogue scale. An Independent t-test was applied to compare the post-treatment smile variables and scores between PME and NEF. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the factors associated with an esthetic smile.
Results: In a comparison of post-treatment photographs between the groups, a statistically significant difference was found in the values of arch form index (AFI) (p = 0.01) and overjet (p = 0.006). A statistically significant difference was observed in the perception of smile esthetics among the raters (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Patients ideally planned for maxillary premolar extraction when treated with non-extraction fixed mechanotherapy using class II elastics did result in dental and soft tissue improvement but were not able to achieve ideal values at the end of treatment. Laypersons and dentists preferred smile esthetics in maxillary first premolar extraction treatment, whereas orthodontists gave higher scores to non-extraction fixed mechanotherapy.