J von Bremen1, C Erbe, H Pancherz, S Ruf. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany, julia.v.bremen@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.
Abstract
AIM: The goal of this study was to compare facial profile attractiveness changes of adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance assessed by orthodontists and laypeople. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient sample comprised 28 adult Herbst patients. Facial profile photographs of the patients were randomly divided into two evaluation sets (before T0, after treatment T1). Ten members of the Angle Society of Europe (orthodontists) and 10 dental students in their third semester (laymen) rated both sets of photographs usingVisual Analog Scales (VAS) with an interval of 1 day between the ratings. RESULTS: On average, both orthodontists and students found an improvement in facial profile attractiveness through Herbst appliance treatment (VAS T1-T0 = 0.3 ± 1.9 cm). However, the interindividual perception of profile attractiveness varied greatly in the two rater groups. For both time periods (T0, T1), lower VAS ratings were given by students than by orthodontists. CONCLUSION: Herbst therapy in adult patients generally improves facial profile attractiveness. Students rated facial profiles more critically than orthodontists.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The goal of this study was to compare facial profile attractiveness changes of adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance assessed by orthodontists and laypeople. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient sample comprised 28 adult Herbst patients. Facial profile photographs of the patients were randomly divided into two evaluation sets (before T0, after treatment T1). Ten members of the Angle Society of Europe (orthodontists) and 10 dental students in their third semester (laymen) rated both sets of photographs using Visual Analog Scales (VAS) with an interval of 1 day between the ratings. RESULTS: On average, both orthodontists and students found an improvement in facial profile attractiveness through Herbst appliance treatment (VAS T1-T0 = 0.3 ± 1.9 cm). However, the interindividual perception of profile attractiveness varied greatly in the two rater groups. For both time periods (T0, T1), lower VAS ratings were given by students than by orthodontists. CONCLUSION: Herbst therapy in adult patients generally improves facial profile attractiveness. Students rated facial profiles more critically than orthodontists.
Authors: Roxanne Shafiee; Edward L Korn; Helmer Pearson; Robert L Boyd; Sheldon Baumrind Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Alexa Helena Kohler Moresca; Nathaly Dias de Moraes; Francielle Topolski; Carlos Flores-Mir; Alexandre Moro; Ricardo Cesar Moresca; Gisele Maria Correr Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Ulrich Gross; Linda Frye; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Stefano Martina; Maria Luisa Di Stefano; Francesco Paolo Paduano; Domenico Aiello; Rosa Valletta; Sergio Paduano Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2020-03-20