METHODS: Two sets of 3-dimensional facial photographs (1 male and 1 female) each comprised 7 images that showed different dentoskeletal relations (ie, Class I, bimaxillary protrusion, bimaxillary retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion, and mandibular retrusion). The sets of photographs were shown to 101 laypersons (age, 28.87 ± 6.22 years) and 60 patients seeking orthognathic treatment (age, 27.12 ± 6.07 years). They rated their esthetic perceptions of the photographs on the basis of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (very unattractive) to 100 (very attractive).
RESULTS: The dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was ranked as the most attractive profile. Female orthognathic judges selected the retrusive maxilla while male orthognathic judges and male and female laypersons ranked the mandibular protrusion profile as the least attractive profile for both females and males. A bimaxillary protrusive female profile was viewed as more attractive by the orthognathic male (P = 0.006) and female (P = 0.006) judges, compared with female layperson judges. After adjustment for age, no statistically significant interaction between sex and judges (P >0.10) for all VAS scores were detected. For the female bimaxillary protrusive profile, orthognathic patient judges assigned a mean VAS score of 9.174 points higher than layperson judges (95% confidence interval, 3.11-15.24; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was generally considered the most attractive profile in both sexes; male and female orthognathic patients preferred a bimaxillary protrusive female profile. A concave facial profile was perceived as least attractive in both sexes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 206 Malaysian adolescents (age: 11-18 years) were screened in orthodontic clinics to identify those with normative need, oral impacts due to malocclusion, and having high and medium-to-high behavioural propensities. The Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need classified normative need. The Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics (PIDA) questionnaire and the Condition-Specific Child-Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (CS-OIDP) index measured oral impacts. Subjects' behavioural propensities for successful treatment outcome were based on the Basic Periodontal Examination and International Caries Detection and Assessment System. Data were analysed using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: The response rate was 99.0%. Estimates of normative need (89.7%) were significantly reduced under the sociodental model by 65.7% (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study participants were 113 persons with DS from the selected community-based rehabilitation center who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten occlusal characteristics of the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) were measured on study models to determine the degree of malocclusion. A single score represented the dentofacial anomalies, determined the level of severity, and determined the need for orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Crowding in the anterior maxillary and mandibular arch was the main malocclusion problems among the subjects with DS. Comparison between age group and genders revealed no significant differences in four categories of orthodontic treatment need (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Most of the subjects with DS (94; 83.2%) had severe and very severe malocclusion, which indicated a desirable and mandatory need for orthodontic treatment.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with 88 LD crowns using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates. The questionnaire for predictors included 3 aspects: (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) oral health habits (tooth brushing frequency, flossing frequency, and dental visits), and (c) satisfaction of the restorations (aesthetics, function, fit, cleansability, and chewing ability of the crowns, and overall satisfaction). Frequency distributions were computed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The Student t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare means across variables. Correlation analysis was done to assess the association between continuous variables.
RESULTS: The age of crowns was 34.7 ± 9.7 months. The survival rate was 96.6% at 35.9 ± 9.2 months. There was a significant association between successful crown function and oral hygiene measures: tooth brushing (p˂ 0.001), dental visits (p = 0.006), and flossing (p = 0.009). A strong negative correlation was observed between aesthetic satisfaction (r = -0.717, p˂ 0.001) and chewing ability (r = -0.639, p˂ 0.001) with crown age. The linear regression model was significant for all predictors (p < 0.05) except overall satisfaction (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The LD crowns had long survival rates of 96.6% up to 35.9 ± 9.2 months and provided satisfactory clinical performance (low risk of failure). Oral hygiene habits such as brushing, flossing, and regular dental visits influenced patient satisfaction with LD crowns.
METHODS: Participants were 7- to 16-year-old children referred to a UK Dental Hospital for management of incisor opacities. Prior to treatment (To), participants completed validated questionnaires to assess OHRQoL and overall health status (C-OHIP-SF19), and self-concept (Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children [SPPC]). Interventions for MIH included microabrasion, resin infiltration, tooth whitening or composite resin restoration. Children were reviewed after six months (T1) when they re-completed the C-OHIP-SF19 and SPPC questionnaires. The relationships of predictors with improvement of children's OHRQoL (T1-To) and children's overall health status at T1 were assessed using linear and ordinal logistic regression respectively, guided by the Wilson and Cleary's theoretical model.
RESULTS: Of 103 participants, 86 were reviewed at T1 (83.5 % completion rate). Their mean age was 11-years (range = 7-16) and 60 % were female. Total and domain OHRQoL scores significantly increased (improved OHRQoL) following MIH treatment. There was a significant positive change in SPPC physical appearance subscale score between To and T1. A higher number of anterior teeth requiring aesthetic treatment were associated with poor improvement of socio-emotional wellbeing at T1 (Coef =-0.43). Higher self-concept at To was associated with greater improvement of socio-emotional wellbeing at T1 (ß = 3.44). Greater orthodontic treatment need (i.e. higher IOTN-AC score) at T0 was linked to worse overall oral health at T1 (OR = 0.43).
CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial factors and dental clinical characteristics were associated with change in children's OHRQoL following minimal interventions for incisor opacities.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: MIH is a common condition and clinicians should be aware of the negative impacts some children experience, particularly those with multiple anterior opacities, poor tooth alignment and low self-concept. However, simple, minimally invasive treatments can provide good clinical and psychosocial outcomes and should be offered to children reporting negative effects.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine esthetic perceptions of the Malaysian population regarding the width of buccal corridor spaces and their effect on smile esthetics in individuals with short, normal, and long faces.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The image of a smiling individual with a mesofacial face was modified to create 2 different facial types (brachyfacial and dolicofacial). Each face form was further modified into 5 different buccal corridors (2%, 10%, 15%, 22%, and 28%). The images were submitted to 3 different ethnic groups of evaluators (Chinese, Malay, Indian; 100 each), ranging between 17 and 21 years of age. A visual analog scale (50 mm in length) was used for assessment. The scores given to each image were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test, and pairwise comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).
RESULTS: All 3 groups of evaluators could distinguish gradations of dark spaces in the buccal corridor at 2%, 10%, and 28%. Statistically significant differences were observed among 3 groups of evaluators in esthetic perception when pairwise comparisons were performed. A 15% buccal corridor was found to score esthetically equally within 3 face types by all 3 groups of evaluators. The Indian population was more critical in evaluation than the Chinese or Malay populations. In a pairwise comparison, more significant differences were found between long and short faces and the normal face; the normal face was compared with long and short faces separately.
CONCLUSIONS: The width of the buccal corridor space influences smile attractiveness in different facial types. A medium buccal corridor (15%) is the esthetic characteristic preferred by all groups of evaluators in short, normal, and long face types.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 150 subjects attending the Primary Care Unit with no history of orthodontic treatment. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) with 10 occlusal characteristics were measured on study models. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed with the Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the malocclusion and quality of life.
RESULTS: Significantly weak correlations (r = .176) were found between the DAI and the OHRQoL. Females and the younger age group (12-19 years) tended to score higher on the OHIP-14 than their counterparts. For males, domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .462), domain 4 (physical disability; r = .312), domain 7 (handicap; r = .309), and overall score (r = .289) were weak correlates but significant to the DAI compared with females. The older age group showed a significant weak correlation in domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .268) and domain 7 (handicap; r = .238), whereas the younger age group showed no correlation with any domain.
CONCLUSIONS: The DAI score does not predict the effect of malocclusion on the OHRQoL.