Karla Florián-Vargas1, Marcos J Carruitero Honores2, Eduardo Bernabé3, Carlos Flores-Mir4. 1. Dentist, Private Practice, Trujillo, Peru., Trujillo , Peru. 2. Assistant professor, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Trujillo, Peru., Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Trujillo , Peru. 3. Senior lecturer, King's College London Dental Institute, Division of Population and Patient Health, London, United Kingdom., King's College, London Dental Institute, Division of Population and Patient Health, London , United Kingdom. 4. Associate professor and Head of the Division of Orthodontics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada., University of Alberta, Division of Orthodontics, University of Alberta, Edmonton , Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-esteem scores in 12 to 16-year-old adolescents with different Angle malocclusion types in a Peruvian sample. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of 276 adolescents (159, 52 and 65 with Angle Class I, II and III malocclusions, respectively) from Trujillo, Peru. Participants were asked to complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and were also clinically examined, so as to have Angle malocclusion classification determined. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare RSES scores among adolescents with Class I, II and III malocclusions, with participants' demographic factors being controlled. RESULTS: Mean RSES scores for adolescents with Class I, II and III malocclusions were 20.47 ± 3.96, 21.96 ± 3.27 and 21.26 ± 4.81, respectively. The ANCOVA test showed that adolescents with Class II malocclusion had a significantly higher RSES score than those with Class I malocclusion, but there were no differences between other malocclusion groups. Supplemental analysis suggested that only those with Class II, Division 2 malocclusion might have greater self-esteem when compared to adolescents with Class I malocclusion. CONCLUSION: This study shows that, in general, self-esteem did not vary according to adolescents' malocclusion in the sample studied. Surprisingly, only adolescents with Class II malocclusion, particularly Class II, Division 2, reported better self-esteem than those with Class I malocclusion. A more detailed analysis assessing the impact of anterior occlusal features should be conducted.
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-esteem scores in 12 to 16-year-old adolescents with different Angle malocclusion types in a Peruvian sample. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of 276 adolescents (159, 52 and 65 with Angle Class I, II and III malocclusions, respectively) from Trujillo, Peru. Participants were asked to complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and were also clinically examined, so as to have Angle malocclusion classification determined. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare RSES scores among adolescents with Class I, II and III malocclusions, with participants' demographic factors being controlled. RESULTS: Mean RSES scores for adolescents with Class I, II and III malocclusions were 20.47 ± 3.96, 21.96 ± 3.27 and 21.26 ± 4.81, respectively. The ANCOVA test showed that adolescents with Class II malocclusion had a significantly higher RSES score than those with Class I malocclusion, but there were no differences between other malocclusion groups. Supplemental analysis suggested that only those with Class II, Division 2 malocclusion might have greater self-esteem when compared to adolescents with Class I malocclusion. CONCLUSION: This study shows that, in general, self-esteem did not vary according to adolescents' malocclusion in the sample studied. Surprisingly, only adolescents with Class II malocclusion, particularly Class II, Division 2, reported better self-esteem than those with Class I malocclusion. A more detailed analysis assessing the impact of anterior occlusal features should be conducted.
Authors: Antonia Aleksieva; Giacomo Begnoni; Anna Verdonck; Annouschka Laenen; Guy Willems; Maria Cadenas de Llano-Pérula Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.390