Journals / 7tepe Klinik / 2021 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of facial profile perception of different groups after camouflage or orthognatic surgery

Kamuflaj tedavisi veya ortognatik cerrahi sonrası yüz profil algısının farklı gruplarda değerlendirilmesi

Pages
3–8
Publication Date
2022-09-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Keywords: Orthognatic profile, Dental camouflage, profile perception

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Mild and moderate Class II and III dental/skeletal malocclusions are treated with dental camouflage or orthognatic surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Method: The initial and final profile pictures of Class II male and female, Class III male and female treated with dental camouflage and the orthognathic surgery simulation profile pictures prepared by Nemoceph (Nemotec, Version 6.0, Madrid, Spain) on the initial profile were converted into silhouettes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Keywords: Orthognatic profile, Dental camouflage, profile perception
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Mild and moderate Class II and III dental/skeletal malocclusions are treated with dental camouflage or orthognatic surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the profile perception of different groups (plastic surgeons, orthodontists and laypeople) in Class II and III skeletal malocclusion after camouflage and orthognathic surgery to assist in deciding the treatment option. Materials and Method: The initial and final profile pictures of Class II male and female, Class III male and female treated with dental camouflage and the orthognathic surgery simulation profile pictures prepared by Nemoceph (Nemotec, Version 6.0, Madrid, Spain) on the initial profile were converted into silhouettes. The questionnaires including these silhouette comparisons in pairs were applied to 30 orthodontists, 30 plastic surgeons and 30 laypeople. Results: Although the orthodontist, plastic surgeon and laypeople chose almost the same profiles, the preferred rates differed. There was no difference between surgeons and orthodontists, however the rate of laypeople preferring orthognathic surgery was less than professionals. Although thecamouflage and orthognatic surgery simulation were preferred more than the initial, the orthognatic surgery rate was higher than the camouflage treatment. Choices were as follows: Orthognathic surgery, camouflage treatment, initial profile. Conclusions: Orthodontist and plastic surgeons preferred orthognathic surgery profile more than the camouflage. However, for laypeople it was not equally important, although it was in the same direction. Therefore, the gains and the risks of surgical option have to be explained to the patients in details and the treatment method should be decided according to the patient's opinion. Keywords: Orthognatic profile, Dental camouflage, profile perception

Özet

Amaç: Hafif ve orta şiddetli Sınıf II ve III dişsel/iskeletsel bozukluklar dental kamuflaj veya ortognatik cerrahi ile tedavi edilmektedir. Çalışmamızın amacı, tedavi seçiminde yardımcı olması için farklı grupların Sınıf II ve III iskeletsel maloklüzyonda kamuflaj ve ortognatik cerrahi sonrası profil algısını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Dental kamuflaj ile tedavi edilmiş Sınıf II kadın ve erkek, Sınıf III kadın ve erkek hastaların başlangıç, tedavi sonrası profil resimleri ve başlangıç profilleri üzerinde Nemoceph (Nemotec, Version 6.0, Madrid, Spain) yazılımı ile hazırlanan ortognatik cerrahi simülasyonu sonrası profil resimleri silüete dönüştürülerek, ikili gruplar şeklinde karşılaştırıldığı anketler 30 ortodontist, 30 plastik cerrah ve 30 meslekten olmayan bireylere (MOB) uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Ortodontist, plastik cerrah ve MOB neredeyse aynı profilleri seçerken, tercih etme yüzdeleri farklıydı. Cerrahlar ve ortodontistler arasında hiçbir fark görülmezken, MOB’ın ortognatik cerrahiyi seçme oranı profesyonellerden daha azdır. Her ne kadar kamuflaj ve ortognatik cerrahi simülasyonu başlangıca göre daha fazla tercih edilmiş olsa da, ortognatik cerrahi seçim oranı kamuflaj tedavisinden daha yüksektir. Seçimler sırası ile şu şekildedir: Ortognatik cerrahi, kamuflaj tedavisi, başlangıç profili. Sonuçlar: Ortodontist ve plastik cerrahlar ortognatik cerrahi sonrası profilleri kamuflaj sonrası profillere tercih etmişlerdir. Bununla birlikte, MOB için seçim aynı yönde olsa da aradaki fark aynı oranda önemli çıkmamıştır. Bu nedenle cerrahi seçeneğinin riskleri ve kazanımları hastaya detaylı bir şekilde anlatılmalı ve tedavi planı hastanın tercihine göre belirlenmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILMAZ, H. N., KARABİBER, G., ÖZBİLEN, E. Ö. (2022). Evaluation of facial profile perception of different groups after camouflage or orthognatic surgery. 7tepe Klinik, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 3–8. https://ajindex.com/articles/426053

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Baldwin DWC. Appearance and aesthetics in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;8:244-256
  2. Kleck RE, Richardson SA, Ronald L. Physical appearance cues and interpersonal attraction in children. Child Dev 1974;45:305-310
  3. Liu S, Fan YY, Guo Z, Samal A, Ali A. A landmark-based data-driven approach on 2.5 D facial attractiveness computation. Neurocomputing 2017;238:168-178
  4. Story RI. Psychological issues in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1966;52:584-598
  5. Kiyak HA, Hohl T, Sherrick P, West RA, McNeill R, et al. Sex differences in motives for and outcomes of orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1981;39:757-764
  6. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusions. Dental Cosmos 1899;41:248-264, 350-357
  7. Almeida-Pedrin RR, Guinaraes LB, Almeida MR, Almeida RR, Ferreira FP. Assessment of facial profile changes in patients treated with maxillary premolar extractions. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17:131-137
  8. Ng D, De Silva RK, Smit R, De Silva H, Farella M. Facial attractiveness of skeletal Class II patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery as perceived by people with different backgrounds. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:515- 520
  9. Hönn M, Dietz K, Godt A, Goz G. Perceived relative attractiveness of facial profiles with varying degrees of skeletal anomalies. J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:187-196
  10. Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Larsen PE, Shanker S. A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:690-696
  11. Hönn M, Dietz K, Eiselt ML, Goz G. Attractiveness of facial profiles as rated by individuals with different levels of education. J Orofac Orthop 2008;69:20-30
  12. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2005;p.565
  13. Fu M, Zhang D, Wang B, Deng Y, Wang F, et al. The prevalence of malocclusion in China--an investigation of 25392 children. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2002;37:371-373
  14. Cleall JF, Begole EA. Diagnosis and treatment of Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1982;52:38-60
  15. Yüksel AG, Iskender SY, Kuitert R, Papadopoulou AK, Dalci K, et al. Differences in attractiveness comparing female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:471-476
  16. Kokich VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-324. 17.