Perceptions of mandibular asymmetry among orthodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and laypersons.
Esthetics
facial asymmetry
oral and maxillofacial surgeons
orthodontists
Journal
Dental research journal
ISSN: 1735-3327
Titre abrégé: Dent Res J (Isfahan)
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101471186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
03
04
2023
revised:
07
09
2023
accepted:
19
09
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Facial asymmetry is one reason orthodontic patients seek treatment. This study assessed the effect of mandibular asymmetry on facial esthetics and treatment needs perceived by laypersons, orthodontists, and maxillofacial surgeons. In this descriptive cross-sectional study, the frontal image of a model was captured and symmetrized from the facial midline using Adobe Photoshop software. The mandible was rotated 0°-8° with 1° intervals. Images were presented to 41 laypersons, 39 orthodontists, and 29 surgeons using an online questionnaire. The observers rated each image's esthetics with a 0-100 Visual Analog Scale and determined their treatment need by choosing one of the following three choices: No need for treatment, needs treatment, acceptable, but better to be treated. Analysis of variance for repeated measurements model. The regression method, Kruskal-Wallis analysis, was used for statistical analysis and the level of significance was set as The images with 0° and 1° rotation received the highest esthetic rates among all three groups, while the images with 8° rotation were the least attractive ones. Furthermore, the image esthetic ratings significantly affected their treatment need. Mandibular asymmetry diagnosis threshold was 1° for orthodontists, and 3° for both laypersons and surgeons. The treatment need threshold was 5°, 6°, and 7° for surgeons, orthodontists, and laypersons, respectively. The esthetics of images decreased when mandibular asymmetry increased. Treatment need was also related to increased asymmetry. Orthodontists were the most sensitive group in diagnosis, while surgeons were the most sensitive ones when it came to treatment.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Facial asymmetry is one reason orthodontic patients seek treatment. This study assessed the effect of mandibular asymmetry on facial esthetics and treatment needs perceived by laypersons, orthodontists, and maxillofacial surgeons.
Materials and Method
UNASSIGNED
In this descriptive cross-sectional study, the frontal image of a model was captured and symmetrized from the facial midline using Adobe Photoshop software. The mandible was rotated 0°-8° with 1° intervals. Images were presented to 41 laypersons, 39 orthodontists, and 29 surgeons using an online questionnaire. The observers rated each image's esthetics with a 0-100 Visual Analog Scale and determined their treatment need by choosing one of the following three choices: No need for treatment, needs treatment, acceptable, but better to be treated. Analysis of variance for repeated measurements model. The regression method, Kruskal-Wallis analysis, was used for statistical analysis and the level of significance was set as
Results
UNASSIGNED
The images with 0° and 1° rotation received the highest esthetic rates among all three groups, while the images with 8° rotation were the least attractive ones. Furthermore, the image esthetic ratings significantly affected their treatment need. Mandibular asymmetry diagnosis threshold was 1° for orthodontists, and 3° for both laypersons and surgeons. The treatment need threshold was 5°, 6°, and 7° for surgeons, orthodontists, and laypersons, respectively.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The esthetics of images decreased when mandibular asymmetry increased. Treatment need was also related to increased asymmetry. Orthodontists were the most sensitive group in diagnosis, while surgeons were the most sensitive ones when it came to treatment.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
107Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Dental Research Journal.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or non-financial in this article.
Références
Angle Orthod. 2005 Jul;75(4):651-5
pubmed: 16097236
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;70(1):192-206
pubmed: 21571417
Acta Odontol Scand. 2005 Jun;63(3):168-72
pubmed: 16191911
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):168.e1-8; discussion 168-9
pubmed: 20152669
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1997;12(3):171-6
pubmed: 9511487
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Feb;37(1):1-12
pubmed: 24152377
Int J Dent. 2020 Oct 08;2020:2068961
pubmed: 33101413
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Mar 1;20(3):304-310
pubmed: 31204322
Brain Struct Funct. 2022 Apr;227(3):843-863
pubmed: 34767078
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Aug;154(2):201-212
pubmed: 30075922
J Clin Med. 2019 May 10;8(5):
pubmed: 31083393
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;33(6):e162-71
pubmed: 24116371
Aust Orthod J. 2015 Nov;31(2):132-7
pubmed: 26999885
Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Oct;20(5):50-7
pubmed: 26560821
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):141-51
pubmed: 16905057
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;78(8):1389-1396
pubmed: 32304663
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012 Nov;15(4):237-44
pubmed: 23020694
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):748-53
pubmed: 18068592
Angle Orthod. 2005 May;75(3):305-10
pubmed: 15898365
J Dent (Shiraz). 2021 Jun;22(2):102-108
pubmed: 34150946
Eur J Orthod. 2011 Dec;33(6):647-53
pubmed: 21355063
Angle Orthod. 1994;64(2):89-98
pubmed: 8010527
Eur J Orthod. 2022 Mar 30;44(2):155-162
pubmed: 34180974
Int J Neurosci. 2005 Aug;115(8):1165-73
pubmed: 16040358