Publications (2)1.21 Total impact
Article: The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study analysed the ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements. Four pictures (in duplicate) were taken of a male patient with Class II malocclusion and mandibular deficiency with the mandible positioned in habitual maximum intercuspation (HMI) and with stepwise advancements of 2mm, 4mm and 6mm. These images were examined by orthodontists (n=30) and laypeople (n=30). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate intra-examiner agreement. Intra-examiner ability to discriminate stepwise mandibular advancements was examined by Friedman's test. A Mann-Whitney's test was carried out to analyse score difference between orthodontists and laypeople. Type I error (alpha) was set as 5% for all statistical tests. We observed a satisfactory to excellent level of methodological reliability. While laypeople were able to notice mandibular advancements ≥4mm (p<0.05), orthodontists were able to observe mandibular advancements ≥2mm (p<0.05). The orthodontists were more critical than laypeople with regard to the facial profile evaluation when facial convexity increased (p<0.001), but no significant difference was observed when the sagittal maxillo-mandibular relationship approached normality (p<0.05). Considering that the mean sagittal mandibular growth due to the use of functional orthopaedic appliances is reported in the literature as 2mm, it seems that laypeople may not able to discriminate this amount of change in facial-profile attractiveness.Progress in orthodontics 09/2012; 13(2):141-7.
Article: Dental crowding.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: To evaluate the role of genetics and tooth wear in the etiology of dental crowding through the analysis of a split indigenous Amazon population. Materials and Methods: Dental crowding prevalence (n = 117), tooth wear (n = 117), and inbreeding coefficient (n = 288) were compared for both villages. A biometric investigation was performed by dental cast analysis of 55 individuals with no tooth loss. Mann-Whitney statistics, independent t-tests, and Fisher exact tests were used at P < .05. Results: A high coefficient of inbreeding was confirmed in the resultant village (F = 0.25, P < .001). Tooth wear was not significantly different (P = .99), while a significantly higher prevalence of dental crowding was confirmed in the original village (PR = 6.67, P = 0.02). Forty dental arches (n = 20) were examined in the new group, and only one (2.5%) had a dental crowding ≥5 mm. In the original villages, we found 20 arches (28.6%) with dental crowding. No difference was observed for tooth size, while larger dental arch dimensions explained a lower level of dental crowding in the resultant village. Conclusions: Our findings downplay the widespread influence of tooth wear, a direct evidence of what an individual ate in the past, on dental crowding and emphasize the role of heredity, exacerbated through inbreeding, in the etiology of this malocclusion.The Angle Orthodontist 07/2012; · 1.21 Impact Factor