ABSTRACT
Introduction: Dental professionals play an important role in an individual's appearance which can affect the perception of others that can vary greatly depending on their educational and socioeconomic background. Aim and Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine an insight of recognizing ability of dental professionals and laypersons toward facial aesthetics with different types of orthodontic malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire-based study was conducted on 90 dental professionals and 90 laypersons. The perceptions differences between groups were assessed using visual analogue scale on 11 photographs. Kolmolgorov-Smirnov was used for normality test. Results: The perceptions of facial aesthetics showing various malocclusions were significantly different between dental professionals and laypersons. Conclusion: The dental professionals and layperson perceptions regarding the facial particularly in central Indian population are significantly different for most of the malocclusion types.
ABSTRACT
Background The orthodontist is often confronted with the need to predict soft tissue profile changes that may result from the orthodontic treatment. The problem arises because the contribution of many of the factors influencing the soft tissue profile still needs to be fully understood. The complexity of the problem is increased in growing patients in whom the post-treatment soft tissue profile is the result of both growth and orthodontic treatment. A primary motivation for seeking orthodontic treatment is a desire to improve dental and facial aesthetics. To achieve balance in the facial profile treated orthodontically, it is essential to identify the underlying skeletal hard tissue and soft tissue parameters. The present study evaluated the changes in facial profile and aesthetics in relation to incisor position. Materials and methods Samples for this study consisted of pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of the Indian population (n = 450) having different incisor relationships. Subjects aged between 18 and 30 years were included. Angular and linear measurements were taken to analyse the incisor relationship with soft tissue parameters. Results The majority (61.2%) of subjects belonged to the age group of 18-30 years. The overall female-to-male ratio in the study was 7:3. The parameter U1 to L1 was abnormal in 86.8% of subjects. Similarly, the parameters S-line upper lip (UL), S-line lower lip (LL), E-line UL, and E-line LL were found abnormal in 93.9%, 86.8%, 82.6%, and 70.1% of subjects, respectively. A significant agreement was found between U1 to L1 and E-line UL and U1 to L1 and E-line LL. Conclusions The present study concludes that facial aesthetics combines soft and hard tissue corrections, not just based on occlusal relationships but also considering facial harmony. Thus, the incisor relationship is an important asset and strongly correlates with other soft tissue and hard tissue parameters that improve facial aesthetics for the individual undergoing orthodontic treatment.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An important constituent of an orthodontic appliance is orthodontic brackets. It is either the bracket or the archwire that slides through the bracket slot, during sliding mechanics. Overcoming the friction between the two surfaces demands an important consideration in an appliance design. The present study investigated the surface roughness of four different commercially available stainless steel brackets. METHODS: All tests were carried out to analyse quantitatively the morphological surface of the bracket slot floor with the help of scanning electron microscope (SEM) machine and to qualitatively analyse the average surface roughness (Sa) of the bracket slot floor with the help of a three-dimensional (3D) non-contact optical surface profilometer machine. RESULTS: The SEM microphotographs were evaluated with the help of visual analogue scale, the surface roughness for group A = 0-very rough surface, group C = 1--rough surface, group B = 2--smooth surface, and group D = 3-very smooth surface. Surface roughness evaluation with the 3D non-contact optical surface profilometer machine was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D. Groups B and D provided smooth surface roughness; however, group D had the very smooth surface with values 0.74 and 0.75 for mesial and distal slots, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor with both SEM and profilometer machine led to the conclusion that the average surface roughness was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D.
