PATIENTS AND METHODS: Free buccal fat pad grafting was carried out in 15 patients in our institution. All were harvested using an intraoral approach. The buccal fat pad graft was used to correct periorbital contour depressions, nasal tip deformities, as a camouflage graft over exposed silicon nasal implants and as a filler in the depression deformity after mass excision.
RESULTS: All 15 patients demonstrated good contour deformity correction without a significant graft resorption up to 3 years of follow-up. There were no donor site complications. The amount used ranged from 1 to 5 cc in volume as a spacer or barrier for the moderate-sized volume defect or depression, even though more than 5 cc of fat graft could be harvested if required.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the buccal fat pad graft represents an easy, expedient and exceptional tool for the correction of contour deformities, volume replacement or for aesthetic augmentation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.
METHODS: Patients in the permanent dentition requiring maxillary and mandibular fixed orthodontic treatment with a preadjusted edgewise appliance were eligible for inclusion. Patients attending 4 hospital departments (United Kingdom and Italy) were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 treatment interventions: (1) BioCosmetic (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), 0.017 in; (2) Titanol (Forestadent), 0.016 in; (3) TP Aesthetic (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), 0.014 in; and (4) Tooth Tone (Ortho Organizers, Calsbad, Calif) 0.016 in. Block randomization with block sizes of 4 and 8 was used to ensure an allocation ratio of 1:1:1:1. The primary outcome was alignment efficiency determined by the reduction in Little's irregularity index (mm). Secondary outcomes were color change using the Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage L*a*b* system and percentage of coating loss. Blinding was only applicable to outcome assessment of alignment efficiency. Regression models with Sidak's multiple comparison of means were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (300 dental arches) were allocated to the treatment interventions, including 61 male and 89 female subjects with a mean age of 16.60 years. The average duration of follow-up was 63.65 days. Baseline characteristics for the archwire groups were similar. One patient was lost to follow-up. Five percent (n = 15) of the archwires fractured: BioCosmetic, 5.3% (n = 4); Titanol, 6.8% (n = 5); TP Aesthetic, 5.3% (n = 4); and Tooth Tone, 2.7% (n = 2). We analyzed 283 dental arches for alignment efficiency. There was no statistically significant difference for mean reduction in irregularity between the archwire groups (P = 0.627): BioCosmetic (n = 71), 3.86 mm (95% CI, 3.31-4.41); Titanol (n = 69), 4.51 mm (95% CI, 4.00-5.02); TP Aesthetic (n = 71), 4.13 mm (95% CI, 3.49-4.78); and Tooth Tone (n = 72), 4.21 mm (95% CI, 3.89-4.46). There was a statistically significant difference between archwire groups for color change (P = 0.001) and percentage of coating loss (P = 0.001), with BioCosmetic performing best in both parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the archwires for alignment efficiency. BioCosmetic performed statistically significantly better than did the other groups for both color change and coating loss.
REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the East Midlands NHS Research Ethics Committee (12/EM/0190).
PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.