American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021
Esthetic impact of maxillary midline diastema and mandibular crowding in children in the mixed dentition.
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.
Carneiro Diego Patrik Alves, Venezian Giovana Cherubi, Valdrighi Heloísa Cristina, de Castro Meneghim Marcelo, Vedovello Silvia A S
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the esthetic impact of mandibular crowding and maxillary midline diastema in children in the mixed dentition.
METHODS: The sample for this cross-sectional study comprised 785 children, aged 8-10 years, in the late mixed dentition. Mandibular crowding and maxillary midline diastema were evaluated clinically with the Dental Aesthetic Index. Mandibular crowding and maxillary midline diastema were evaluated to determine tooth size-arch length discrepancies. The sample was stratified as group 1, children without maxillary midline diastema or mandibular crowding (n = 177); group 2, children with maxillary midline diastema (n = 256); group 3, children with mandibular crowding (n = 208); and group 4, children with maxillary midline diastema and mandibular crowding (n = 144). The subjective esthetic impact was evaluated using the Orthodontic Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score. Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the data were performed. A generalized linear model was applied, adjusted for the possible confounding variables (age, gender, and race) with a significance level of 5% because the Orthodontic Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score did not meet the assumptions of analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Children in groups 2 and 3 showed greater esthetic concern than group 1 (P <0.05). Children in groups 2 and 3 did not show a significant difference with children in group 4 (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Children with mixed dentition with mandibular crowding or maxillary median diastema reported significantly more esthetic concern than children without these conditions.
METHODS: The sample for this cross-sectional study comprised 785 children, aged 8-10 years, in the late mixed dentition. Mandibular crowding and maxillary midline diastema were evaluated clinically with the Dental Aesthetic Index. Mandibular crowding and maxillary midline diastema were evaluated to determine tooth size-arch length discrepancies. The sample was stratified as group 1, children without maxillary midline diastema or mandibular crowding (n = 177); group 2, children with maxillary midline diastema (n = 256); group 3, children with mandibular crowding (n = 208); and group 4, children with maxillary midline diastema and mandibular crowding (n = 144). The subjective esthetic impact was evaluated using the Orthodontic Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score. Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the data were performed. A generalized linear model was applied, adjusted for the possible confounding variables (age, gender, and race) with a significance level of 5% because the Orthodontic Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score did not meet the assumptions of analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Children in groups 2 and 3 showed greater esthetic concern than group 1 (P <0.05). Children in groups 2 and 3 did not show a significant difference with children in group 4 (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Children with mixed dentition with mandibular crowding or maxillary median diastema reported significantly more esthetic concern than children without these conditions.