RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to evaluate the perception of orthodontists and of lay people about the facial profile and its possible correlation with cephalometrics parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 evaluators were divided into two groups (10 orthodontists and 10 people with no relation to such area - lay people). They were asked to evaluate the photographs of 25 young males and of 25 young females, aged 17-24-year-old (mean age of 22.3 years, standard deviation 2.41 years). Photographs were randomly arranged in a photo album. The evaluators rated each photograph by means of a scale ranging from "good" to "deficient" based on the pleasantness of their facial profile. Nasolabial angle, Holdaway's H-line and the distance from H-line to nose tip were measured, in order to verify a possible relation between these soft tissue profile cephalometric measurements and the subjective ratings. RESULTS: The kappa statistics test showed a concordance of 0.23 among orthodontists and 0.24 among lay people. Regarding the perception of orthodontists and lay people on facial profile, no significant divergence could be detected. For the correlation between cephalometric parameters and subjective ratings, there was a statistically significant correlation between the measures H and H-nose and the rating ascribed to the profile. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that smaller the difference from the normal cephalometric pattern, the higher was the rating given to the profile, demonstrating an important relation between subjective and objective criteria.
RESUMO
Em face ao aumento do número de processos contra profissionais cirurgiões-dentistas, em especial os ortodontistas, este estudo teve o objetivo de avaliar as decisões dos tribunais em processos contra estes profissionais, mais precisamente no que concerne à natureza da responsabilidade civil de sua obrigação, se "de meio" ou "de resultado". Foi verificada também a proporção do número de processos com ações procedentes e improcedentes, além de conhecer o perfil dos apelantes e apelados. Trata-se de um estudo observacional analítico sobre decisões judiciais que envolveram tratamentos ortodônticos, entre os anos de 2001 a 2011, avaliados nos sites dos tribunais regionais brasileiros utilizando como palavra-chave ortodontia. Somente foi levada em consideração a decisão final em grau recursal, desconsiderando-se a decisão de primeira instância. Os dados foram compilados em Figuras e tabelas por meio de análise descritiva e teste Exato de Fisher (p < 0,001). Na região sudeste concentra-se a maior concentração (45%, n=27) de processos do Brasil, principalmente o estado de São Paulo. Quanto à natureza da obrigação, a de meio foi a mais encontrada (83%, n=50); o número de ações improcedentes (65%) foi maior que ações procedentes. As mulheres foram as principais apelantes (81%, n=49) e as pessoas jurídicas foram a maioria das apeladas (41%, n=24). Foi possível concluir que os tribunais de justiça classificaram a ortodontia como obrigação de meio, e o número de ações improcedentes foram maiores as procedentes. Quando a obrigação é de resultado, a tendência da ação ser procedente é maior. Já, em relação ao perfil dos apelantes (reclamantes), a maioria foi mulheres e, a maioria dos apelados foi pessoas jurídicas.
Given the increased number of lawsuits against dentists, particularly orthodontists, this study aimed to evaluate court decisions regarding lawsuits against these professionals, focusing precisely on the nature of their liability as a "mean" or "result" obligation. Also, it was verified the ratio between the number of lawsuits and founded and unfounded actions, in addition to knowing appellants' and appellees' profile. This is an observational analytical study about court decisions involving orthodontic treatments, between the years 2001 and 2011, evaluated on the Brazilian regional courts websites using the keyword orthodontics. It was taken into account only the final decision upon appeal, disregarding the decision of first instance. Data were compiled into tables and graphs by means of descriptive analysis and Fisher's exact test (P<0.001). Southeast concentrates the majority of lawsuits (45%, n = 27) in Brazil, mostly the state of Sao Paulo. As to the nature of the duty, the obligation of mean was found most frequently (83%, n = 50); and the number of unfounded actions (65%) was greater than founded ones. Women were the main appellants (81%, n = 49), and appellees were mostly legal entities (41%, n = 24). It is concluded that courts of justice have classified orthodontics as an obligation of mean, and the number of unfounded actions was greater than that of founded ones. When it is an obligation of result, the odds for the action to be founded is greater. In relation to the appellants' profile (claimants), the majority was women, and most of the appellees were legal entities.