Comparison of Smile Parameters, Maxillary Arch Changes and Perceived Smile Attractiveness in Patients Treated with Conventional and Self-ligating Bracket Systems: An Observational Study
Introduction: The smile is an important determinant of facial attractiveness. Patients seek orthodontic treatment to enhance the aesthetics of their smiles. Passive Self-ligating (SL) appliances are promoted as a means to enhance smile aesthetics by widening the arch and thereby diminishing the bucc...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/20872/74240_CE[Ra1]_F(IS)_QC(PS_IS)_PF1(RI_OM_SS)_PFA(IS)_PB(RI_IS)_PN(IS).pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Introduction: The smile is an important determinant of facial attractiveness. Patients seek orthodontic treatment to enhance the aesthetics of their smiles. Passive Self-ligating (SL) appliances are promoted as a means to enhance smile aesthetics by widening the arch and thereby diminishing the buccal corridor area.
Aim: To compare the transverse maxillary arch changes, smile parameters and their effect on smile aesthetics in patients treated with conventional and passive SL bracket systems.
Materials and Methods: The present retrospective observational study, which spanned five months (May 2023 to September 2023) was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (tertiary care dental teaching hospital), Velappanchavadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, 30 records of patients who were treated between 2018 and 2023 were analysed-15 with conventional brackets (Group 1) and 15 with SL brackets (Group 2). Pre- and post-treatment digital models were used to assess changes in intermolar and intercanine widths. Pre- and post-treatment frontal smiling images were used to measure changes in smile parameters and ratios. The frontal smile photographs were sent to 30 raters, consisting of laypeople, general dentists and specialists like Orthodontists and aesthetic dentists, who scored the smile attractiveness on a 10-point Likert scale. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni’s post-hoc test were used to compare the aesthetic scores, with p-value ≤0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: In Group 1, the average age was 17.5±4.7 years, while in Group 2 it was 16.5±5.6 years. Group 1 had ten females and five males. Group 2 had nine females and six males. The mean pre- and post-treatment inter-canine widths in Group 2 were 462.33±82.63 mm and 542.47±99.33 mm, respectively and the difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.004). The mean pre- and post-treatment visible dentition widths in Group 2 were 481.2±196.41 mm and 608.4±248.82 mm, respectively and the difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.049). There were no significant differences in other smile parameters, ratios, or maxillary arch changes between and within Groups 1 and 2. There was a statistically significant difference between the smile attractiveness scores given by the raters in the pre- and post-treatment stages of both groups (p-value ≤0.001). The smile aesthetic scores given by raters from the dental specialist groups were significantly lower compared to those from the general dentists and laypeople groups.
Conclusion: The alteration in maxillary arch width, buccal corridor space and smile attractiveness showed no significant variation when treated with either SL or conventional brackets. The study did not find any advantages to support the use of the SL bracket system over conventional brackets for the purpose of smile enhancement and reduction of buccal corridor space. Regardless of the type of bracket, orthodontic therapy significantly enhances smile aesthetics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |