Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Paula, Eliana de Cássia Molina de
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Pedrin, Renata Rodrigues de Almeida
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade do Sagrado Coração
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Ortodontia
|
| Departamento: |
Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.usc.br:8080/jspui/handle/tede/310
|
Resumo: |
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate effects of mandibular protraction appliance (M P A) associated with fixed appliances in the facial profile of Class II, division 1 malocclusion subjects. Sample comprised 54 (27 pretreatment and 27 posttreatment) lateral cephalograms of 27 (14 females and 13 males) subjects with a mean age of 12.27 years, during an average period of 2.9 years. From the lateral cephalograms of the 27 subjects (pretreatment and posttreatment) a black silhouette of each patient´s profile was randomly created. Then, 60 orthodontists and 60 laypersons selected the most aesthetic facial profile (A or B), and the amount of profile changes observed in the pretreatment and posttreatment silhouettes, according to a visual analog scale (VAS). Paired t tests were applied to perform the intergroup comparison (p ≤0.05). Accordind to the results obtained, when comparing pretreatment and posttreatment profiles, both groups presented with statistical significant difference, and the majority of the evaluators preferred the posttreatment profile. Regarding the perception of evaluators in the amount of similarities or differences between pretreatment and posttreatment facial profiles, results of the VAS showed that the laypersons group evaluators identified a largest difference between pretreatment and posttreatment facial profiles than orthodontists´group (p 0.001*). It can be concluded that, in the judgment of the evaluators (orthodontists and lay people), treatment with mandibular protraction appliance promoted a positive effect on soft tissue profile and lay people identified this effect in a greater extent |
