Martina Eichenberger1, Christine B Staudt1, Nikolaos Pandis2, Wanda Gnoinski1, Theodore Eliades3. 1. * Department for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland and. 2. ** Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School, University of Bern, Switzerland. 3. * Department for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Theodore.Eliades@zzm.uzh.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS: Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS: Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS: Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS: Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.
Authors: R Al-Ghatam; T E M Jones; A J Ireland; N E Atack; O Chawla; S Deacon; L Albery; A R M Cobb; J Cadogan; S Leary; A Waylen; A K Wills; B Richard; H Bella; A R Ness; J R Sandy Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Adam Stebel; Wanda Urbanová; Irena Klimova; Andrzej Brudnicki; Ivana Dubovska; Petra Polackova; Daniela Kroupová; Magdalena Koťová; Piotr S Fudalej Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.984