Characteristics and Dynamics of Smile in Patients With Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Versus Class I Malocclusion Using Still Digital Video Captures: A Three-Group, Cross-Sectional, Comparative Study.

class ii malocclusion dynamic smile interlabial gap nasolabial angle skeletal class ii division 1 malocclusion skeletal class ii division 2 malocclusion smile arc smile position still images video recording

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Historique:
accepted: 26 10 2022
entrez: 2 11 2022
pubmed: 3 11 2022
medline: 3 11 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Background Smiling is one of the effective ways for people to express their feelings. It is an integral part of the diagnosis and planning and a key point of the treatment objectives in orthodontic care. Many factors are associated with a pleasant smile, such as correct anatomy, gingival health, and teeth proportion. Therefore, different malocclusion classes can affect the characteristics of smile esthetics. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of skeletal class II malocclusion on the characteristics and dynamics of the smile in the sagittal and frontal planes. Methodology The study sample included 60 patients comprising three groups of malocclusion classes, namely, Class I, Class II division 1, and Class II division 2. A video recording was taken for 5-10 seconds for each patient using a specific camera mounted at a fixed distance from the imaged face. Two facial expressions were captured for each patient, one representing the lips at rest and the second representing the unrestricted natural smile. The facial still images were derived from the streaming video recording, and two images were chosen for each plane (the frontal plane and the sagittal plane) for each patient. In total, 12 variables were assessed on these captured images. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect significant differences between the three groups. Results There were statistically significant differences in some of the measured variables. The mean values of thickness of the upper lip, commissure height, gum width, maxillary incisor display, and interlabial gap were greater in the Class II division 1 group than in the other two groups. The proclined incisors were evident in the Class II division 1 group, while the retroclined incisors were evident in the Class II division 2 group. Conclusions The skeletal Class II malocclusion influences the characteristics of the smile, either assessed on the anterior or lateral imaging angles, in addition to its influence on the resting position of the lips. Orthodontists should always analyze patients' facial expressions, including those related to the upper and lower lips at rest and when patients smile naturally. Depending on the results of this analysis, treatment planning could be built to improve the characteristics of the natural smile in patients with Class I and Class II malocclusions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36320787
doi: 10.7759/cureus.30704
pmc: PMC9598050
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e30704

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022, Kabalan et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Jan;51(1):24-8
pubmed: 6583388
Angle Orthod. 2009 Mar;79(2):256-64
pubmed: 19216599
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr;133(4):491-9
pubmed: 18405812
J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Jan;132(1):39-45
pubmed: 11194397
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):4-12
pubmed: 12867893
Eur J Orthod. 1995 Apr;17(2):111-20
pubmed: 7781719
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):310.e1-10; discussion 310-1
pubmed: 19732654
J Public Health Dent. 1975 Summer;35(03):160-4
pubmed: 1057022
Dent Clin North Am. 1997 Jan;41(1):29-48
pubmed: 9023061
Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2018 Jan 1;32(1):66-70
pubmed: 29336294
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jan;129(1):8-16
pubmed: 16443472
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Aug;108(2):162-7
pubmed: 7625391
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974 Apr;53(4):384-7
pubmed: 4815693
J Clin Orthod. 2005 Mar;39(3):155-67; quiz 154
pubmed: 15888949
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 May;117(5):575-6
pubmed: 10799119
J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24
pubmed: 10825866
Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Jan-Feb;12(1):9-19
pubmed: 10196823
Korean J Orthod. 2017 Jan;47(1):31-38
pubmed: 28127537
Clin Orthod Res. 1998 Aug;1(1):2-11
pubmed: 9918640
J Clin Orthod. 2002 Apr;36(4):221-36
pubmed: 12025359
Angle Orthod. 1992 Summer;62(2):91-100; discussion 101-2
pubmed: 1626754
Prog Orthod. 2015;16:28
pubmed: 26341345
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 May;91(5):385-94
pubmed: 3472457

Auteurs

Rahaf Maged Kabalan (RM)

Department of Orthodontics, University of Hamah Faculty of Dentistry, Hamah, SYR.

Reham Khaled Tayyar (RK)

Department of Orthodontics, University of Hamah Faculty of Dentistry, Hamah, SYR.

Tarek Z Khattab (TZ)

Department of Orthodontics, University of Hamah Faculty of Dentistry, Hamah, SYR.

Mohammad Y Hajeer (MY)

Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus, SYR.

Classifications MeSH