American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2026
Evaluation of facial profile and incisor inclination preferences in orthodontically treated borderline nonextraction and extraction Class I and mild Class II malocclusions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vu Wendy, Konstantonis Dimitrios, Nargaski Natoosha, Posluns James, Daskalogiannakis John
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Improvement in facial and dental esthetics is a motivator for orthodontic treatment. An update in the preferences of clinicians and patients is necessary because beauty standards are constantly evolving and extraction and nonextraction decisions impact soft tissue and incisor position. This study aimed to update facial profile and incisor inclination preferences among orthodontists (ORs), general dentists (GPs), and laypeople (LPs) and correlate these preferences with objective soft tissue and incisor changes.
METHODS: This retrospective study used discriminant analysis to identify 30 borderline patients with Class I and mild Class II treated with extractions and 30 treated with nonextraction. Assessment of profile and incisor inclination was performed by 90 LPs, 40 ORs, and 40 GPs using a 200 mm visual analog scale and rankings on a web-based survey. The degree of preference between the profile esthetics and incisor inclination was compared using the Cohen d value for standardized mean difference.
RESULTS: Survey results indicated ORs' preference for extraction profiles (mean difference = 5.52 mm; 95% confidence interval = 1.64-9.40), GPs' preference for nonextraction profiles (mean difference = 3.67 mm; 95% confidence interval = 0.43-6.92), and all groups showing a stronger preference for more upright incisors. LPs' preferences are more aligned with GPs.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs preferred protrusive lips and acute nasolabial angles (typical in nonextraction treatment), while strongly preferring upright incisors (typical in extraction treatment). These discrepancies in preferences highlight the importance of communication of treatment objectives and expectations among ORs, LPs, and GPs.
METHODS: This retrospective study used discriminant analysis to identify 30 borderline patients with Class I and mild Class II treated with extractions and 30 treated with nonextraction. Assessment of profile and incisor inclination was performed by 90 LPs, 40 ORs, and 40 GPs using a 200 mm visual analog scale and rankings on a web-based survey. The degree of preference between the profile esthetics and incisor inclination was compared using the Cohen d value for standardized mean difference.
RESULTS: Survey results indicated ORs' preference for extraction profiles (mean difference = 5.52 mm; 95% confidence interval = 1.64-9.40), GPs' preference for nonextraction profiles (mean difference = 3.67 mm; 95% confidence interval = 0.43-6.92), and all groups showing a stronger preference for more upright incisors. LPs' preferences are more aligned with GPs.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs preferred protrusive lips and acute nasolabial angles (typical in nonextraction treatment), while strongly preferring upright incisors (typical in extraction treatment). These discrepancies in preferences highlight the importance of communication of treatment objectives and expectations among ORs, LPs, and GPs.