American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2014
Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 2: attractiveness of the frontal facial smile in extraction and nonextraction outcomes.
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.
Meyer Anna H, Woods Michael G, Manton David J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to assess the influence that the buccal corridor might have on the frontal facial attractiveness of subjects who had received orthodontic treatment with or without 4 premolar extractions.
METHODS: Posttreatment full-face frontal smiling photographs of 30 premolar extraction and 27 nonextraction patients were evaluated by 20 orthodontists, 20 dentists, and 20 laypeople using a visual analog scale. The ratings were analyzed according to rater group, rater sex, and number of years in practice for orthodontists and dentists to search for any statistically significant differences in the ratings on the basis of treatment groups, subject sex, and buccal corridor widths and areas.
RESULTS: Orthodontists and dentists gave higher mean overall frontal facial attractiveness scores than did laypeople. There were no significant differences in how men and women rated the study subjects. The number of years in practice did not affect how the orthodontists rated, but it did affect the ratings of the dentists. Female subjects were consistently rated as significantly more attractive than male subjects. There was no difference in ratings for the extraction and nonextraction subject groups. The buccal corridor widths and areas did not affect the frontal facial attractiveness ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: If treatment has been carried out with thorough diagnosis and careful planning, neither the choice of extraction or nonextraction treatment, nor the resulting buccal corridor widths or areas appeared to affect the subjects' frontal facial attractiveness.
METHODS: Posttreatment full-face frontal smiling photographs of 30 premolar extraction and 27 nonextraction patients were evaluated by 20 orthodontists, 20 dentists, and 20 laypeople using a visual analog scale. The ratings were analyzed according to rater group, rater sex, and number of years in practice for orthodontists and dentists to search for any statistically significant differences in the ratings on the basis of treatment groups, subject sex, and buccal corridor widths and areas.
RESULTS: Orthodontists and dentists gave higher mean overall frontal facial attractiveness scores than did laypeople. There were no significant differences in how men and women rated the study subjects. The number of years in practice did not affect how the orthodontists rated, but it did affect the ratings of the dentists. Female subjects were consistently rated as significantly more attractive than male subjects. There was no difference in ratings for the extraction and nonextraction subject groups. The buccal corridor widths and areas did not affect the frontal facial attractiveness ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: If treatment has been carried out with thorough diagnosis and careful planning, neither the choice of extraction or nonextraction treatment, nor the resulting buccal corridor widths or areas appeared to affect the subjects' frontal facial attractiveness.