Comparison of smile attractiveness, dental inclination, and dental arch widths in patients treated with Damon system self-ligating appliance, using two different bonding: conventional and \"Smile Arc\"

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Corrêa, Marcelo Soares
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: eng
• Instituição de defesa: Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USP
• Palavras-chave em Português: Aparelho autoligável; Atratividade; Attractiveness; Cone beam computed tomography; Damon System; Dental arch widths; Dental inclination; Inclinação dentária; Larguras do arco dentário; Self-ligating appliance; Sistema Damon; Tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico
• Link de acesso: https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/25/25144/tde-29042022-101556/

Objective: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in the smile attractiveness, dental inclinations and dental arches dimensions in patients treated by the Damon® System, using two different orthodontic bonding: conventional and Smile Arc Protection. Material and methods: The sample consisted of 40 patients (19 women, 21 men) with completed orthodontic treatment who already have all the initial and final documentation, including cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The sample was divided into two groups: group 1 - 20 patients, 7 women and 13 men, with initial age mean of 23,75 + 4,03 and final age mean 26,87 + 4,09, treated with Damon system using conventional bonding; group 2 - 20 patients, 12 women and 8 men, with initial age mean of 28,11 + 9,66 and final age mean 30,62 + 10,46, treated with Damon system using Smile Arc bonding. Eighty CBCT images, 40 pretreatment and 40 posttreatments were evaluated. Initials and finals dental inclinations, and dental arches dimensions were evaluated, and compared between these two groups. Eighty frontal photographs of the posed smile, 40 pretreatment (T1) and 40 posttreatment (T2) photographs were evaluated to compare the smile attractiveness between the two groups, and compared between these two groups. A website with the smile attractiveness evaluation instructions was created for the raters. Through e-mail, each possible evaluator received a link to the evaluations form. The smiles were automatically randomized, each time the user accessed the webpage. The groups of evaluators consisted of 3 groups: group 1 - 59 orthodontists, group 2 - 62 dentists and group 3- 57 lay people with a mean age of 39.83 (+10.48), 48.73 (+14.07) and 42.68 (+14.03) respectively. Results: The intergroup comparison of the dental inclination at the initial stage (T1), the conventional group was presenting statistically significantly greater dental inclination than the smiler arc group, and the smile arc group showed a smaller arch width than the conventional group. In the final stage (T2), after the end of orthodontic treatment and after removal of the orthodontic appliance, the dental buccal inclinations of the both groups increased in relation to the initial stage, with the exception of the mandibular molars in the smile arc group, and the intergroup comparison the conventional group presented statistical significantly greater increase of dental buccal inclinations than the smile arc group and the smile arc group showed statistically significantly smaller arch dimensions than the conventional group. In the intergroup comparison of the changes that occurred during treatment (T2-T1), the smile arc group presented higher buccal dental inclinations statistical significantly than the conventional group in 3 of 24 evaluated dental inclinations. On the other hand, the smile arc group presented smaller buccal dental inclinations statistical significantly than the conventional group in 6 of the 24 dental inclinations. And in relationship of the arch dimensions the conventional group presented a greater increase in all the measures analyzed than smile arc group, and in 5 of the 8 analyzed arch widths there were statistically significant differences. In the intragroup comparison of smile dimensions, in relation to the initial (T1) and final (T2) stages, dependent t test showed that the smile arc group, there was an increase in the Smile Width (SW), Maxillary Intercanine Width (MICW), and Buccal Corridor (BC), and in the Interlabial Distance (ILD) there was a decrease, but all these changes were not statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant increase in the Smile Index (SI). Regarding the treatment changes (T2-T1) between the groups, none of the 5 analyzed variables presented statistically significant differences. The results of comparability of the groups of evaluators, one-way ANOVA and Tukey test showed statistically significant difference between the age of groups, the Dentists group presented an older age. Regarding gender, the chi-square test also showed the presence of a statistically significant difference between the groups. Conclusion:The conventional bonding group showed, in general, a greater dental buccal inclination and a larger transversal increase in the archs dimensions. The 5 attractiveness variables analyzed showed no differences between groups. The perception of smile attractiveness, considered the highest rating for the Smile Arc bonding group.