Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the 2 most commonly used methods for assessing facial pleasantness, the Likert scale and the visual analog scale (VAS). METHODS: For assessing facial pleasantness, an album was assembled containing the front and profile view facial photographs of 10 patients (5 females, 5 males) who sought orthodontic treatment representing each of the different sagittal and vertical facial discrepancies (straight profile, convex profile, concave profile, long faces, and short faces). The facial pleasantness of the patients was judged by 3 groups of 90 evaluators (47 females and 43 males): 30 orthodontists (mean age, 32.41 years), 30 oral maxillofacial surgeons (mean age, 36.83 years), and 30 laypeople (mean age, 36.83 years). The evaluators judged the facial pleasantness using VAS and a 5-point Likert scale. At the end of the evaluation, the evaluators completed a questionnaire about their preferred scale. Analysis of variance and Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the data from VAS and Likert scale, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to estimate the correlation between the 2 scales. Fisher transformation and z-statistic were used to estimate the correlation among the evaluator groups. In all tests, a 5% statistical significance level was adopted. RESULTS: Both scales presented similar answers; only VAS values for the scores of pleasant and very pleasant according to the Likert scale could not be distinct. Most evaluators preferred the Likert scale as they found it easier to convey their opinion than VAS. CONCLUSIONS: Although both scales can be used to assess facial pleasantness, the Likert scale seems more appropriate as the evaluators preferred it because of its simplicity.

Influence of orthodontic appliance design on employment hiring preferences.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent to which different types of orthodontic appliances influence the hiring process of an individual applying for a customer service position. METHODS: A total of 7 images were created for 2 adult models: 1 male and 1 female. One image was produced without orthodontic appliances, and 6 simulated the use of orthodontic appliances, including a conventional metallic appliance with a gray elastic ligature, a conventional metallic appliance with blue elastic ligature, a conventional appliance with a transparent elastic ligature, a self-ligating metal appliance, a self-ligating esthetic appliance, and a clear aligner. A photo album was designed for each model and delivered, along with a questionnaire, to individuals in charge of job interviews and hiring. These evaluators included 236 individuals, divided into 4 groups according to age and gender: males between 18-35 years (M), males over 35 years (M > 35), females between 18-35 years (F), and females over 35 years (F > 35). The evaluators quantified the chance of hiring the models using a Visual Analogue Scale. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the evaluators according to gender and age. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the models according to gender. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests were used to compare the appliances according to design. A 5% significance level was used for all tests. RESULTS: The clear aligner group showed the highest likelihood of being hired, followed by the group without orthodontic appliances, the groups with esthetic appliances (ie, conventional appliance with a transparent elastic ligature, and self-ligating esthetic appliance), and the groups with metallic appliances (ie, self-ligating metal appliance, conventional metallic appliance with gray elastic ligature, and conventional metallic appliance with blue elastic ligature). CONCLUSIONS: Assuming all other qualifications of the applicants are equivalent, the use of an orthodontic appliance may influence job interviews. The better the esthetics of the appliance, the higher the likelihood of the individual being hired.

Stability of early treatment of anterior open bite: clinical performance of bonded lingual spurs.

Anterior open bite (AOB) is a malocclusion that generates aesthetic, speech, feeding and psychological issues, a fact that emphasises the importance of conducting early treatments to fix the disorder. Finger-sucking, pacifiers and oral habits are the main aetiological factors of AOB; thus, it is necessary to apply interceptive treatments focused on correcting and improving bite stability during childhood in order prevent the need of undergoing advanced therapy. The aim of this article is to present the early diagnosis of aetiological factors causing severe AOB and the interceptive treatment based on the use of bonded lingual spurs for one year. Results showed excellent bite stability after two years of follow-up; in other words, the proper treatment applied for the recommended growth and developmental periods enabled case stability.

Impact of orthodontic treatment with aligners on the oral health-related quality of life of patients with trisomy 21.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of treatment with orthodontic aligners (OA) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with trisomy 21 (T21) compared to non-syndromic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 30 patients, both sexes, aged between 11 and 35 years, divided into two groups: T21 (n = 10, patients with T21, treated prospectively) and CONTROL (n = 20, control group, non-syndromic patients, from the Orthodontic Laboratory of UNOPAR). In both groups, patients were treated with Invisalign orthodontic aligners (Align Technology), following the same treatment parameters. Participants, assisted by their caregivers, when necessary, answered Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) instrument and the patient's guardians answered the Oral Health Scale for People with Down's syndrome (OHDS) instrument, before (T0) and after 30 (T1), 180 (T2), and 365 (T3) days from the start of treatment. Friedman tests with Bonferroni correction and Mann-Whitney tests were used (p < .05). RESULTS: For the OHDS instrument, it was observed that for the eating and communication domains and an overall score, the treatment with OA positively impacted the lives of T21 patients (p < .05). Regarding the OHIP-14 instrument, the intragroup evaluation showed that in the CONTROL group, there was no significant difference between the evaluated times; while for the T21 group, there was a significant positive impact (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The results showed that the treatment with aligners positively impacted the OHRQoL of T21 patients, and these results were perceived by caregivers, mainly in relation to issues related to eating and communication.

Relapse of Anterior Open Bite: A Case Report.

The aim and objective of this study is to report the recurrence of the treatment of the anterior open bite after 5 years of treatment. A female patient aged 8 years 6 months old had a negative vertical crossing of -4.7 mm. Early treatment with a fixed palatal grid was performed for 1 year. At the end of the treatment, the vertical overpass was 1.1 mm and after 2 years of control, the vertical overpass remained positive with 1.7 mm showing the stability of the treatment. After 5 years, and due to the sucking and lingual interposition habit, there was a recurrence of the open bite. Interdisciplinary follow-up is extremely important to eliminate the factors responsible for the origin of deleterious habits, thus solving the changes resulting from these habits and providing long-term stability. How to cite this article: Justulin AF, Rossato PH, Conti ACCF, et al. Relapse of Anterior Open Bite: A Case Report. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):140-144.

Effects of orthodontic treatment with aligners and fixed appliances on speech.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate effects of orthodontic treatment with aligners and conventional fixed appliances on production of speech. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a parallel, randomized clinical trial. Patients with Angle Class I malocclusion, moderate crowding, and no speech impairment were randomly allocated to two groups: patients with orthodontic aligners (OAs; n = 20; mean age = 23.60 ± 5.65 years) and those with conventional fixed appliances (n = 20; mean age = 20.56 ± 4.51 years) and treated at the University of North Parana's clinic in Londrina, Brazil. Evaluation of speech production was performed semiobjectively by a speech therapist (myofunctional orofacial examination) and subjectively (self-assessment) at five time points: baseline, immediately after insertion of appliances, and subsequently at 3, 30, and 180 days after insertion. For intergroup comparison, independent t, χ2, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney tests were used; for intragroup comparison, the Friedman test was applied (α = 5%). RESULTS: In the semiobjective evaluation, patients with OAs exhibited a change in production of speech production, compared with patients with fixed appliances, immediately and 3 days after insertion of appliances (P < .001). Thirty days after insertion, the groups were similar (P = .487), an outcome that was unchanged at 180 days. However, in the self-assessments, patients in both groups reported significant speech difficulties immediately and 3 days after insertion of appliances, but such impairment was no longer perceived at 30 days or 180 days. CONCLUSIONS: Although the speech therapist identified changes in speech production at the start of treatment in the OA group only, patient self-assessments demonstrated that orthodontic treatment, regardless of the type of appliance used, interfered with their perception of speech.