Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2014 | Original article

Veränderungen der Profilattraktivität bei erwachsenen Patienten durch Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur

Authors: Dr. J. von Bremen, C. Erbe, H. Pancherz, S. Ruf

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2014

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Ziel dieser Studie war es, zu untersuchen ob es bei erwachsenen Klasse-II-Patienten durch die Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur zu Veränderung der von Kieferorthopäden und Laien subjektiv empfundenen Profilattraktivität kommt.

Material und Methoden

Insgesamt 28 erwachsene mit einer Herbstapparatur behandelte Klasse-II-Patienten wurden untersucht. Die Profilfotos wurden randomisiert (T0 vor, T1 nach Behandlung) einem von 2 Beurteilungssets zugeordnet. Zehn Mitglieder der Angle Society of Europe (Kieferorthopäden) sowie 10 Zahnmedizinstudenten im dritten vorklinischen Semester (Laien) bewerteten an 2 aufeinander folgenden Tagen jeweils eines der beiden Beurteilungssets mittels visueller Analogskalen (VAS).

Ergebnisse

Sowohl Kieferorthopäden als auch Laien beurteilten durch die Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur eine Verbesserung der Profilattraktivität (VAS T1–T0 = 0,3 ± 1,9 cm). Allerdings variierte das interindividuelle Attraktivitätsempfinden in beiden Untersuchergruppen stark. Zu beiden Zeitpunkten (T0, T1) wurden von den Studenten deutlich niedrigere Bewertungen gegeben als von den Kieferorthopäden.

Schlussfolgerungen

Generell wird bei erwachsenen Patienten die subjektiv empfundene Profilattraktivität durch die Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur verbessert. Studenten bewerteten Gesichtsprofile deutlich kritischer als Kieferorthopäden.

Abu Arqoub SH, Al-Khateeb SN (2011) Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions. Eur J Orthod 33:103–111CrossRef

al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van’t Hof MA (1998) Assessment of dental and facial aesthetics in adolescents. Eur J Orthod 20:399–405CrossRef

Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA et al (1998) Presurgical profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:631–637PubMedCrossRef

Baysal A, Uysal T (2013) Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 35:71−81PubMedCrossRef

Bock NC, Ruf S (2012) Dentoskeletal changes in adult Class II division 1 Herbst treatment—how much is left after the retention period? Eur J Orthod 34:747-53 PubMedCrossRef

Bock NC, Santo C, Pancherz H (2009) Facial profile and lip position changes in adult Class II, Division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst-Multibracket appliance. A radiographic cephalometric pilot study. J Orofac Orthop 70:51–62PubMedCrossRef

Bonetti GA, Alberti A, Sartini C et al (2011) Patients‘ self-perception of dentofacial attractiveness before and after exposure to facial photographs. Angle Orthod 81:517–524PubMedCrossRef

Chaiyongsirisern A, Rabie AB, Wong RW (2009) Stepwise advancement Herbst appliance versus mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Treatment effects and long-term stability of adult Class II patients. Angle Orthod 79:1084–1094PubMedCrossRef

Chan EK, Soh J, Petocz P et al (2008) Esthetic evaluation of Asian-Chinese profiles from a white perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:532–538PubMedCrossRef

10.

Chew MT, Sandham A, Soh J et al (2007) Outcome of orthognathic surgery in Chinese patients. A subjective and objective evaluation. Angle Orthod 77:845–850PubMedCrossRef

11.

Cox NH, Linden FP van der (1971) Facial harmony. Am J Orthod 60:175–183PubMedCrossRef

12.

Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:180–187PubMedCrossRef

13.

Almeida MR de, Flores-Mir C, Brandão AG et al (2008) Soft tissue changes produced by a banded-type Herbst appliance in late mixed dentition patients. World J Orthod 9:121–131PubMed

14.

De Smit A, Dermaut L (1984) Soft-tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 86:67–73CrossRef

15.

Erbe C, Mulié RM, Ruf S (2011) Advancement genioplasty in Class I patients: predictability and stability of facial profile changes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:1258–1262PubMedCrossRef

16.

Foos PW, Clark MC (2011) Adult age and gender differences in perceptions of facial attractiveness: beauty is in the eye of the older beholder. J Genet Psychol 172:162–175PubMedCrossRef

17.

Foster EJ (1973) Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 43:34–40PubMed

18.

Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A et al (2000) The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:514–525PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hönekopp J (2006) Once more: is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:199–209PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hungerford MW (1890) Molly Bawn. Smith, Elder & Co, London

21.

Kerr WJ, O’Donnell JM (1990) Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 17:299–304PubMed

22.

Knight H, Keith O (2005) Ranking facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 27:340–348PubMedCrossRef

23.

Macías Gago AB, Romero Maroto M, Crego A (2012) The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population. Eur J Orthod 34:335–339CrossRef

24.

Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM et al (2005) A comparison of providers‘ and consumers‘ perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:690–696PubMedCrossRef

25.

Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210PubMed

26.

Michiels G, Sather AH (1994) Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 9:95–103PubMed

27.

Michiels G, Sather AH (1994) Validity and reliability of facial profile evaluation in vertical and horizontal dimensions from lateral cephalograms and lateral photographs. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 9:43–54PubMed

28.

Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:303–114PubMedCrossRef

29.

Naini FB, Donaldson AN, Cobourne MT et al (2012) Assessing the influence of mandibular prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Eur J Orthod 34:738–746PubMedCrossRef

30.

Ng D, De Silva RK, Smit R et al (2012) Facial attractiveness of skeletal Class II patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery as perceived by people with different backgrounds. Eur J Orthod

31.

Orsini MG, Huang GJ, Kiyak HA et al (2006) Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the anteroposterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:283–291PubMedCrossRef

32.

Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M (1994) Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 16:275–286PubMedCrossRef

33.

Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C (1992) Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 20:214–220PubMedCrossRef

34.

Powell SJ, Rayson RK (1976) The profile in facial aesthetics. Br J Orthod 3:207–215PubMed

35.

Purkayastha SK, Rabie AB, Wong R (2008) Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in adults: stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Herbst appliance. World J Orthod 9:233–243PubMed

36.

Ruf S, Pancherz H (1999) Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 69:239–246PubMed

37.

Ruf S, Pancherz H (2006) Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. a prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 28:352–360PubMedCrossRef

38.

Ruf S, Pancherz H (2004) Orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in adult Class II Division 1 treatment: mandibular sagittal split osteotomy versus Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:140–152PubMedCrossRef

39.

Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R et al (2007) Three-dimensional facial morphometry of attractive children and normal children in the deciduous and early mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 77:1025–1033PubMedCrossRef

40.

Shafiee R, Korn EL, Pearson H et al (2008) Evaluation of facial attractiveness from end-of-treatment facial photographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:500–508PubMedCrossRef

41.

Sloss EA, Southard KA, Qian F et al (2008) Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:509–514PubMedCrossRef

42.

Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ (2001) Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 119:464–471PubMedCrossRef

43.

Tatarunaite E, Playle R, Hood K et al (2005) Facial attractiveness: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127:676–682PubMedCrossRef

44.

Tulloch C, Phillips C, Dann C IV (1993) Cephalometric measures as indicators of facial attractiveness. Int J Adult Orthodont Orthognath Surg 8:171–179

Title: Veränderungen der Profilattraktivität bei erwachsenen Patienten durch Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur
Authors: Dr. J. von Bremen
C. Erbe
H. Pancherz
S. Ruf
Publication date: 01-05-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0210-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Veränderungen der Profilattraktivität bei erwachsenen Patienten durch Behandlung mit einer Herbstapparatur

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Material und Methoden

Ergebnisse

Schlussfolgerungen

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Material und Methoden

Ergebnisse

Schlussfolgerungen

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Zygomatic mini-implant for Class II correction in growing patients

Efficacy of the self-assembling peptide P11-4 in constructing a remineralization scaffold on artificially-induced enamel lesions on smooth surfaces

Orthofile®: a new approach for mechanical interproximal reduction

Effects of mechanical and bacterial stressors on cytokine and growth-factor expression in periodontal ligament cells

Differential diagnosis of primary failure of eruption (PFE) with and without evidence of pathogenic mutations in the PTHR1 gene

Mitteilungsseiten