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.

Self-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the perception of facial esthetics of patients with different profiles as assessed by orthodontists, lay people, and patients. METHODS: The sample comprised 120 patients (81 females, 39 males; mean age, 26.3 years) selected from private practices at the onset of orthodontic treatment. The patients were divided into 3 groups of 40 according to the type of facial profile. The groups were composed of straight, concave, and convex profiles, on the basis of the facial convexity angle (G.Sn.Pog') measured on the initial cephalometric tracings. Patients analyzed only their frontal (smiling and at rest) and profile facial photographs and evaluated the pleasantness of these images on a 5-point Likert scale. A group of 30 orthodontists and 30 lay people also evaluated the patients' facial pleasantness, using the same scale. Factorial analysis of variance (convexity and sex) was used to evaluate the differences between the convexities, and analysis of variance mixed model (type of evaluator and sex) to compare the 3 categories of evaluators, using the aligned rank transform technique. The correlation between the convexity angle and facial pleasantness was assessed by the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Patients and lay people assigned higher pleasantness scores than orthodontists, with statistically significant differences for all evaluations, except for the frontal analysis of the convex group. The correlation coefficients regarding profile convexity and facial pleasantness were negative, indicating a tendency that more convex or concave facial profiles received lower pleasantness scores; however, this correlation was only significant in the evaluation of profile photographs by orthodontists. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with different profiles were scored with acceptable faces by lay people and patients themselves. Orthodontists' perceptions were different; they attributed lower pleasantness scores. Discrepant profiles affect facial esthetics in the profile view when judged by orthodontists.

Orthodontists' and patients' perceptions regarding techniques to reduce the orthodontic treatment duration.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' and orthodontists' perspectives on knowledge of techniques for reducing orthodontic treatment time and acceptance of these techniques. METHODS: A total of 200 individuals were interviewed and equally divided into two groups: orthodontist group (62 female and 38 male; mean age, 38.07 years) and patient group (52 female and 48 male; mean age, 22.61 years; in the active stage of fixed orthodontic treatment). One questionnaire for each group was administered, including questions about the duration of orthodontic treatment and techniques used for treatment optimization, such as corticotomy, distraction osteogenesis, vibration, and laser therapy. The associations between variables were analyzed by the χ2 test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Among orthodontists, 76% knew at least one technique to reduce the treatment duration, with corticotomy being the most frequently cited (66%); however, only 12% used one or more of these techniques. Laser therapy was the most frequently implemented technique (7%). Regarding the duration of orthodontic treatment, the mean time reported by orthodontists was 19 to 24 months, regardless of the technique or the experience of the orthodontist. Furthermore, 39% of patients expected their treatment to last for more than 24 months, with 50% accepting to undergo further procedures to reduce this duration. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to undergo additional procedures to reduce the treatment duration and to bear additional costs. However, despite their knowledge, orthodontists do not apply or offer these techniques to the patients.