OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. RESULTS: In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons (P = .017) and orthodontists (P = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles (P = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus (P = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. RESULTS: In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons (P = .017) and orthodontists (P = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles (P = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus (P = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.
Authors: John L Mergen; Karin A Southard; Deborah V Dawson; Laura L Fogle; John S Casko; Thomas E Southard Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore; Lisa Alvetro; Efisio Defraia; Luis Tomas Huanc Ghislanzoni; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 1.372