Nicola A Parkin1, Jennifer V Freeman2, Chris Deery3, Philip E Benson4. 1. Consultant orthodontist, Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield, and Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Barnsley, United Kingdom. 2. Associate professor, Division of Biostatistics, The Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. Professor and honorary consultant, paediatric dentistry, Academic Unit of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 4. Reader and honorary consultant, orthodontics, Academic Unit of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.benson@sheffield.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic judgments of orthodontists and laypeople regarding the appearance of palatally displaced canines 3 months after treatment with either a closed or an open surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 3 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Patients with unilateral palatally displaced canines were randomly allocated to receive either a closed or an open surgical exposure. The teeth were aligned with fixed appliances, and 3 months after debond, intraoral photographs were taken. The photographs were projected in random order to 2 panels of judges (orthodontists and laypeople), who completed a questionnaire. RESULTS: The images of 67 participants (closed, 33; open, 34) were included. The laypeople were able to identify the operated tooth only 49.7% of the time (95% CI, 45.3%-54.0%); this was no better than chance (P = 0.880). The orthodontists were more successful but still identified the treated canine with certainty only 60.7% of the time (95% CI, 53.7%-67.8%; P = 0.003). Both panels more frequently assessed the unoperated canine to have a better appearance than the contralateral operated canine; however, there were no differences between the closed and open groups (proportion preferring unoperated canine-laypeople: closed, 58.7%; open, 57.0%; P = 0.43; and orthodontists: closed, 60.9%; open, 60.6%; P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: There is an esthetic impact to aligning a palatally displaced canine, but it is mostly minor and unlikely to be detectable by laypeople. The esthetic impact was the same, whether the canine was exposed with a closed or an open surgical technique.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic judgments of orthodontists and laypeople regarding the appearance of palatally displaced canines 3 months after treatment with either a closed or an open surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 3 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Patients with unilateral palatally displaced canines were randomly allocated to receive either a closed or an open surgical exposure. The teeth were aligned with fixed appliances, and 3 months after debond, intraoral photographs were taken. The photographs were projected in random order to 2 panels of judges (orthodontists and laypeople), who completed a questionnaire. RESULTS: The images of 67 participants (closed, 33; open, 34) were included. The laypeople were able to identify the operated tooth only 49.7% of the time (95% CI, 45.3%-54.0%); this was no better than chance (P = 0.880). The orthodontists were more successful but still identified the treated canine with certainty only 60.7% of the time (95% CI, 53.7%-67.8%; P = 0.003). Both panels more frequently assessed the unoperated canine to have a better appearance than the contralateral operated canine; however, there were no differences between the closed and open groups (proportion preferring unoperated canine-laypeople: closed, 58.7%; open, 57.0%; P = 0.43; and orthodontists: closed, 60.9%; open, 60.6%; P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: There is an esthetic impact to aligning a palatally displaced canine, but it is mostly minor and unlikely to be detectable by laypeople. The esthetic impact was the same, whether the canine was exposed with a closed or an open surgical technique.
Authors: Jadbinder Seehra; Andrew T DiBiase; Shruti Patel; Rachel Stephens; Simon J Littlewood; Richard J Spencer; Tom Frawley; Philip E Benson; Anthony J Ireland; Farnaz Parvizi; Nikki Atack; Giles Kidner; Gabriella Wojewodka; Christopher Ward; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Jonathon T Newton; Martyn T Cobourne Journal: Trials Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 2.728