ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Evaluation of the Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on Patients' Self-Esteem: A Systematic Review

Authors:

Abstract

Malocclusion may affect interpersonal relationships, self-esteem (SE), and psychological well-being, weakening patients' psychological and social activities. Several studies investigated the effect of orthodontic treatment on these social and psychological aspects, such as SE. However, the direct relationship between SE and orthodontic treatment has not yet been confirmed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing evidence in the literature concerning the influences of orthodontic treatment on patients’ SE systematically and critically. An electronic search in the following databases was done in September 2022: PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, GoogleTM Scholar, Cochrane Library databases, Trip, and OpenGrey. Then, the reference list of each candidate study was checked for any potentially linked papers that the electronic search might not have turned up. Inclusion criteria were set according to the population/intervention/comparison/outcome/study design (PICOS) framework. For the data collection and analysis, two reviewers extracted data separately. The risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tools were used to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each finding. Sixteen studies (five RCTs, seven cohorts, and four cross-sectional) were included in this review. Unfortunately, the results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis. Only six studies have reported an increase in SE after orthodontic treatment (P<0.05 in these studies). No agreement between the included studies was observed regarding the influence of fixed orthodontic treatment, gender, or age on SE. The quality of evidence supporting these findings ranged from very low to low. There is low evidence indicating that fixed orthodontic treatment can improve patients' SE. In addition, unclear data are available about the influence of patients' gender and age on SE after orthodontic treatment. Therefore, high-quality RCTs are required to develop stronger evidence about this issue.
Review began 10/26/2023
Review ended 10/28/2023
Published 10/31/2023
© Copyright 2023
Shaadouh et al. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License CC-
BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Evaluation of the Impact of Orthodontic
Treatment on Patients' Self-Esteem: A Systematic
Review
Rashad I. Shaadouh , Mohammad Y. Hajeer , Ahmad S. Burhan , Mowaffak A. Ajaj , Samer T. Jaber ,
Ahmad Salim Zakaria , Khaldoun M.A. Darwich , Ossama Aljabban , Youssef Latifeh
1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR 2. Department of
Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Watanyia Private University, Hama, SYR 3. Department of Orthodontics, School
of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, MYS 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty
of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR 5. Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Faculty
of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR
Corresponding author: Mohammad Y. Hajeer, myhajeer@gmail.com
Abstract
Malocclusion may affect interpersonal relationships, self-esteem (SE), and psychological well-being,
weakening patients' psychological and social activities. Several studies investigated the effect of orthodontic
treatment on these social and psychological aspects, such as SE. However, the direct relationship between SE
and orthodontic treatment has not yet been confirmed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the
existing evidence in the literature concerning the influences of orthodontic treatment on patients’ SE
systematically and critically. An electronic search in the following databases was done in September 2022:
PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, GoogleTM Scholar, Cochrane Library databases, Trip, and
OpenGrey. Then, the reference list of each candidate study was checked for any potentially linked papers
that the electronic search might not have turned up. Inclusion criteria were set according to the
population/intervention/comparison/outcome/study design (PICOS) framework. For the data collection and
analysis, two reviewers extracted data separately. The risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) and the risk of bias in non-
randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tools were used to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and
evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each finding. Sixteen
studies (five RCTs, seven cohorts, and four cross-sectional) were included in this review. Unfortunately, the
results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis. Only six studies have reported an increase in SE after
orthodontic treatment (P<0.05 in these studies). No agreement between the included studies was observed
regarding the influence of fixed orthodontic treatment, gender, or age on SE. The quality of evidence
supporting these findings ranged from very low to low. There is low evidence indicating that fixed
orthodontic treatment can improve patients' SE. In addition, unclear data are available about the influence
of patients' gender and age on SE after orthodontic treatment. Therefore, high-quality RCTs are required to
develop stronger evidence about this issue.
Categories: Psychology, Dentistry, Oral Medicine
Keywords: fixed orthodontic treatment, orthodontic treatment, self-concept, adults, adolescent, fixed treatment,
orthodontic, psychological, self-esteem
Introduction And Background
Malocclusion is a common public health problem, which causes physical and psychological implications for
patients and influences their daily life [1]. Many studies have shown its negative impact on social
perceptions [2]. It may affect appearance, interpersonal relationships, self-esteem, and psychological health,
weakening patients' psychological and social activities, such as smiling, emotion, and social contact [3,4].
On the other hand, the orthodontic treatment itself and its appliance may affect the psychological and social
activities of patients due to the appearance of these devices [5,6], their effect on speech [7-9], the
accompanying pain and discomfort [10-12], and the associated functional impairment [11].
Due to the growing appreciation of the impact of dentofacial problems on social and psychological health
[13], orthodontists have argued that the aesthetically pleasing appearance of teeth and associated soft tissue
leads to greater self-esteem (SE) and social health [14,15]. As a result, several studies investigated the social
and psychological aspects of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment, such as oral health-related quality of
life (OHRQoL) [1,5] and SE [13,16,17] to understand the impact of malocclusion on patients’ lives and to
develop effective orthodontic care that improves patient’s attitudes toward treatment and their self-concept
and SE [18].
Generally, the self-concept embodies the answer to the question, "Who am I?" [19]. Piers determined self-
1 1 1 1 2
3 4 5 6
Open Access Review
Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48064
How to cite this article
Shaadouh R, Hajeer M, Burhan A, et al. (October 31, 2023) Evaluation of the Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on Patients' Self-Esteem: A
Systematic Review. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064
concept as a set of attitudes people have about themselves that describe and evaluate their behavior [20].
Moreover, self-concept was defined by Beane et al. as the perceptions that a person has of oneself in relation
to individual attributes and the various roles performed by the person [21]. Self-concept cannot be described
as positive or negative since it is irrelevant to value judgments and represents only a description of the
perceived self. In contrast, SE refers to the estimation that a person makes about the description of one's
self-concept and, more precisely, to what extent one is satisfied or dissatisfied with his/her self-concept, in
whole or in part. Thus, King argued that SE and self-concept represent two discrete dimensions [22].
Self-esteem was defined as a multifaceted notion, for which Harter developed a tool to measure both global
and specific self-worth [23]. Explicit SE refers to beliefs and values in particular domains, such as school
competence or close friendship, whereas global SE refers to one's perception and assessment of oneself as a
person [24]. It has been stated that adolescents with little SE have a higher chance of developing worse
mental and physical health, poorer economic well-being, and higher levels of criminal behavior in adulthood
[25].
Although this well-known and accepted correlation between SE and malocclusion, the direct relationship
between SE and orthodontic treatment has not been confirmed yet; while several studies show that
orthodontic treatment may improve SE scores at the end of treatment [13,17,26], others have found no
differences in SE after the completion of orthodontic treatment [24,27,28]. Thus, there is no clear evidence
about the effect of orthodontic treatment on self-esteem. Additionally, no previous systematic review was
performed on this topic. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing evidence in the
literature concerning the influences of orthodontic treatment on patients' SE systematically and critically.
The focused review question was "How does orthodontic treatment affect patients’ self-esteem?"
Review
Materials and methods
Scoping Search
A scoping search was conducted in the PubMed database before designing the final systematic review
protocol to verify the existence of any systematic reviews with comparable objectives and to investigate
potentially relevant papers. No literature reviews regarding how orthodontic treatment affects patients' SE
were found as a result of this search. Several articles that were related to the topic of this review were found.
Eligibility Criteria
The participants/interventions/comparisons/outcomes/study design (PICOS) framework was used to define
the inclusion criteria.
Participants: Healthy patients of all ages and malocclusions, both males and females, of all racial groups
undergoing orthodontic treatment were included.
Interventions: Any orthodontic treatment using fixed or removable orthodontic appliances.
Comparisons: In the case of two- or three-arm comparable studies, the comparison group may be any group
of patients who did not undergo any form of orthodontic treatment or a group of patients being treated with
another orthodontic technique different from that in the interventional group or a group of subjects with
normal occlusion.
Outcomes: Patients’ SE after orthodontic treatment is measured by the Rosenberg scale, Harter’s self-
perception profile, the global negative self-evaluation, or any other validated scale for SE assessment. The
effect of the type of orthodontic treatment and patients’ age and gender on SE is determined.
Study design: In English, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RTC (CCTs), prospective cohort
studies, and cross-sectional studies were included without time of publication restrictions.
Sources and Search Strategy
PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, Google TM Scholar, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, Trip,
and OpenGrey databases were electronically searched in September 2022 without time limits. The details of
the electronic search strategy for each database are presented in Appendix 1. The keywords used in the
search strategy are listed in Appendix 2. The reference list of each candidate study was checked for any
potentially linked papers that the electronic search might not have turned up.
Study Selection
After electronically removing the duplicated papers retrieved from the databases and manual searches using
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 2 of 20
the Endnote™ reference management software program (Clarivate Analytics, Philadephia, PA, USA), the
titles and abstracts of articles were assessed. Two reviewers (RIS and MYH) independently evaluated the
suitability of each article in light of the selection criteria. Then, the entire text of all articles that potentially
meet the inclusion criteria was assessed by the same two reviewers or could not reach a clear judgment based
on the title or summary. Articles were excluded if they failed to satisfy one or more qualifying criteria. In
case of disagreement and a conversation did not result in agreement, a third reviewer (ASB) was consulted.
Data Collection Process
The following data were among the information extracted from the included articles in this review and
organized into summary tables: author's name, year of publication, country, study design, comparison,
sample size (male/female), mean age, malocclusion, type of orthodontic treatment, questionnaire employed,
questionnaire administration time, main finding, and p-value.
Risk of Bias Assessment of the Studies
First, the risk of bias of each included study was assessed by the two reviewers (RIS and MYH) separately
using Cochrane's risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) [29] and ROBINS-I tool for non-RCTs [30].
Second, the judgments of both reviewers were compared. In case of disagreement, and a conversation did
not result in agreement, a third reviewer (MAA) was consulted to help reach a decision. For RCTs, the five
domains of the RoB2 tool were judged as having a high, low, or unclear risk of bias.
After that, the overall risk of bias for each study was determined according to the following criteria: a low
risk of bias if all fields were assessed as having a low risk of bias; a moderate risk if one or more fields were
evaluated as having an unclear risk of bias; and a high risk of bias, if one or more fields were assessed as
being at high risk of bias.
For the non-RCTs, the seven domains of the ROBINS-I tool were rated as having a low, moderate, critical, no
information, or serious risk of bias. After that, the overall risk of bias for each study was determined
according to the following criteria: low risk of bias if all fields were assessed as having a low risk of bias; a
moderate risk if all fields were assessed as having a low or moderate risk of bias; serious risk of bias if one or
more fields were assessed as having a serious risk of bias, but no critical risk of bias in any field; critical risk
of bias if one or more fields were assessed as having a critical risk of bias; and no information when there
was a lack of information in one or more key bias categories and no overt indication that the study is at
serious or critical risk of bias.
The Quality of the Evidence
Based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach, the
strength of the evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low for each outcome. The quality of the
evidence of each outcome was assessed by the two reviewers (RIS and MYH) separately. After that, the
judgments of both reviewers were compared. In case of disagreement and a conversation was not resolved, a
third reviewer (MAA) was consulted to help reach a decision.
Synthesis of Results
Due to the qualitative nature of the data, meta-analysis was not feasible. Instead, a thematic synthesis
approach was employed to synthesize the data. Thematic analysis is a suitable method for qualitative
research [26]. The findings were summarized based on significant and prominent themes. Consequently, the
following thematic headings were identified: (1) effect of orthodontic treatment on SE; (2) the effect of type
of orthodontic treatment on SE; and (3) the effect of age and gender on SE.
Results
Literature Search Flow and the Retrieved Studies
The electronic search in the databases and reference lists yielded 2,768 references. After removing duplicate
references, 597 citations were carefully checked. A total of 575 documents were removed based on checking
the titles and abstracts, and then the eligibility of 22 full-text records was evaluated. As a result, 16 studies
were included in the systematic review [13,17,24,26-28,31-40], and six were excluded. The reasons for
exclusion are given in Appendix 3. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow chart for the processes of selection and
inclusion.
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 3 of 20
FIGURE 1: PRISMA 2009 flow diagram of the included studies
Studies’ Characteristics
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. Out of these trials, five were RCTs
[26,27,37,38,40], seven studies were cohort studies [13,24,28,32,34,35,39], and the other four studies had a
cross-sectional design [17,31,33,36]. All of them were in English. These studies were carried out across seven
countries, including the UK [13,34,35,37,38,40], Brazil [26,33], Korea [17,28], the USA [27,31], Spain [36,39],
Belgium [24], Norway [32].
Study
setting
Methods Participants Interventions Results
Author,
Year,Country Studydesign Type of comparison Patients (female/male) and
age range (years) Malocclusion Type of orthodontic
treatment Malocclusion
assessmentUsedquestionnaireQuestionnaire
administration
time Main findingsP-valve
Pithon et al.
2021 [26],
Brazil RCT Treated group vs Control
group 44 adult patients (31
female/13 male), age: 17-
49, TG: 22 patients, CG: 22
patients Skeletal class I and
Angle Class I or II
malocclusions with
missing lateral incisors Fixed appliances NR Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale(RSES) TG: T1:
before
orthodontic
treatment, T2:
afterorthodontic
treatment,
CG: T1: at
baseline, T2:
after 12
The spacing
resulting from
missing
maxillary
lateral incisors
had anegative
impact on the
self-esteem of
theparticipants,
whileorthodontically<0.001
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 4 of 20
months closing those
spaces had a
positive
impact on this
aspect
Avontroodt
et al. 2019
[24],Belgium Cohort Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T0: 326 adolescents (172
girls/154 boys), age: 11-16
years, T2: 123 adolescentsNR Fixed appliances IOTN Harter’s Self-
Perception
Profile for
Adolescents
(SPPA) T0: baseline,
T1: namely 1
year after the
start of
treatment
(T1), T2:1
month after
the end of
treatment
There was no
statistically
significant
difference in
allquestionnaire
scores
between T0
and T2 Global
self-esteem
acts as a
stable
construct
during
orthodontic
treatment 0.0564
Choi et al.
2017 [28],
Korea Cohort Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T0: 66 adult patients (36
female/30 male), age: 19-39
years, mean age: 24.2 ± 5.2
years, T2: 66 adult patientsClass I, II, or III with or
without premolar
extraction Fixed appliances IOTN Rosenberg
Self-esteem
Scale(RSES) T0: atbaseline, T1:
12 months
aftertreatment
initiation, T2:
debonding There was no
statistically
significant
difference in
allquestionnaire
scores
between T0
and T2 > 0.05
de Couto
Nascimento
et al. 2016
[33], BrazilProspective
cross-
sectional
design Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T1: 102 adult patients (77
female/25 male), age: 18-66
years, T2: 102 adult patientsMalocclusion s caused by
dental losses and
agenesis Fixed appliances NR Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale(RSE)T1: early
orthodontic
treatment (1–
3 months of
treatment),
T2: after
leveling and
alignment
phase
(minimum of
8 months of
treatment)
Orthodontic
treatment
causes a
significant
increase in
patients’ self-
esteem and
QoL <0.001
Mandall et
al. 2016
[40], UK RCT Treated group vs Control
group T1:73 patients (39 female/34
male), TG: 35 patients, CG:
38 patients (mean age: 9±
0.8 years), T2: 65 patients
(33 female/32 male), TG: 33
patients (mean age: 15
years ± 10.3 months), CG:
32 patients (mean age: 15.3
years ± 10.1 months) Class III malocclusion FM NR Piers Harris
questionnaireT1: atbaseline, T2:
at 6-year
follow-up Earlyprotraction
facemask
treatment
does not
seem to
confer a
clinically
significant
psychosocial
benefit 0.48
Romero-
Maroto et
al. 2015
[36], SpainCross-
sectional Treated group vs Control
group 170 adult patients (100
female/70 male), mean age:
29.80 ± 9.55 years, TG: 85
patients, CG: 85 patients Class I, Class II, and
Class III malocclusion
with anterior
malalignment and no
need for extractions,
dental crowding >6 mm Fixed appliances NR Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale(RSES) T1: b efore
treatment, T2:
after 3-6
months of
treatment No significant
differences
were found in
relation to
self-esteem
between the
groups 0.839
T0: baseline,
T1: after 1 Undergoing
fixed
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 5 of 20
Johal et al.
2014 [13],
United
Kingdom Cohort Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T0: 61 adult patients (48
female /13 male), age: 18-
71 years, mean age: 41.2,
T4: 60 adult patients NR Fixed appliances IOTN Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale (RSE)month, T2:
after 3
months, T3:
after 6
months, T4:
post-treatment orthodontic
therapy
appeared to
have a
significant
improvement
in self-esteem.0.002
Seehra et
al. 2013
[35], UK Cohort Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T0: 27 patients (14
female/13 male), mean age:
14.6 (±1.5) years, T1: 27
patients Classes I, II, or III FixApp/FuncApp/RetainersIOTN Harter’s Self-
Perception
Profile T0: Pre-
treatment, T1:
post-treatment There were no
significant
differences in
the pre-and
posttreatment
scores of the
participants
on the Harter
measure of
self-esteem
scale NR
Mandall et
al. 2012
[38], UK RCT Treated group vs Control
group T1:73 patients (39 female/34
male), TG: 35 patients
(mean age: 8.7±0.9 years),
CG: 38 patients (mean age:
9±0.8 years), T3: 63 patients
(33 female/30 male), TG: 30
patients (mean age:
12.1±0.9 years), CG: 33
patients (mean age:
12.3±0.8 years) Class III malocclusion FM NR Piers Harris
questionnaireT1: atbaseline, T2:
at 15-month
follow-up, T3:
at 3-year
follow-up There were
tiny changes
in self-esteem
over time and
no statistically
significant
increase in
self-esteem as
a result of
protraction
facemask
treatment 0.56
Jung et al.
2010 [17],
Korea Cross-
sectional DB: after debonding of fixed
appliances) group FO: FOA
treatment group RO: During or
finished ROA treatment group
NO: No orthodontic treatment
group 4,509 patients (2,944
female/1,565 male), age: 12-
15 years Crowding/protrusion/other
types of malocclusion FixApp/RemoApp NR Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale (RSE)1 week before
the clinical
examinations
Anterior
crowding
causes low
self-esteem in
adolescent
girls. FO or
RO treatment
could not
improve self-
esteem during
treatment;
however, after
fixedtreatment,
significantly
higher self-
esteem was
observed in
the girls
NR
Mandall et
al. 2010
[37], UK RCT Treated group vs Control
group T1:73 patients (39 female/34
male), TG: 35 patients
(mean age: 8.7±0.9 years),
CG: 38 patients (mean age:
9±0.8 years), T2: 69
patients, TG: 33 patients
(mean age: 10±0.9 years),
CG: 36 patients (mean age:
10.3±0.8 years) Class III malocclusion FM NR Piers Harris
questionnaireT1: atbaseline, T2:
at 15-month
follow-up There was no
increased self-
esteem
(Piers–Harris
score) for
treated
children
compared with
controls 0.22
there appears
to be a
significant
effect of
orthodontic
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 6 of 20
Show et al.
2007 [34],
UK Cohort Group 1: Prior need for
treatment in 1981 –treatment
received by 2001. Group 2:
Prior need for treatment in
1981 – no treatment by 2001
Group 3: No prior need for
treatment in 1981 – no
treatment by 2001 Group 4:
No prior need for treatment in
1981 – treatment received by
2001 T0: 1,018 patients, Age: 11-
12 years, T1: 332 (188
female/144 male), age:
29.6-32.4 years NR NR ICON Rosenberg
Self-Esteem
Scale (RSE)T0: atbaseline
(1981) T1:
third follow up
(2001)
treatment on
self-esteem in
later life. The
group of
participants
who had a
prior need in
1981, but who
did not receive
treatment, had
lower self-
esteem in
2001 than the
control group
(no prior need,
no treatment)
andsignificantly
lower self-
esteem than
the prior need
group who
received
treatment; this
last group had
the highest
mean self-
esteem in
2001
< 0.01
Birkeland et
al. 2000
[32],Norway Cohort ROA group vs FOA group vs
Control group T1: 359 children, mean age:
11 years, T2: 224 children
(120 girls/104 boys), mean
age: 15 years RemoApp, G:
16 patients/FixApp, G: 51
patients, CG: 157 patients NR FixApp/RemoApp IONT PAR The Global
Negative
Self-Evaluation
Scale (GSE)T1: atbaseline (age:
11 years old),
T2: 15 years
old An overall
improvement
in GES score
over the 4-
year period
was found. A
gender
difference was
found <0.001
Varela et al.
1995 [39],
Spain Cohort Pre-treatment vs Post-
treatment T1: 40 adult patients (37
female/3 male), age: 18-42
years, T3: 40 adult patients
(37 female/3 male) moder ate to severe
malocclusions Fixed appliances Threeindependent
orthodontistsTennessee
Self-Concept
Scale (TSCS)T1: before
treatment, T2:
after 6
months of
treatment, T3:
from 1 to 4
weeks after
the end of
activetreatment. Changes
across the
threemeasurement
periods were
not significantNR
Albino et al.
1994 [27],
USA RCT Treated group vs Control
group T1: 93 patients (46
female/47 male), age: 11-
14, TG: 44, CG: 49, T5: 76
patients, TG: 39, CG: 37 Mild-to-moderate
malocclusions Fixed appliances Treatment
Priority
Index Coopersmith
Self-esteem
Inventory
Rosenberg
Self-image
Inventory
T1: before
treatment, T2:
during
treatment (8-
10 months
after began),
T3: on
termination of
activetreatment, T4:
6 months
aftertermination,
T5: 1 year
after treatment did
not affect the
subjects' self-
esteem NR
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 7 of 20
termination
O'Regan et
al. 1991
[31], USA Cross-
sectional Pre-treatment group vs Post-
treatment group vs Control
group 220 patients (144 female/76
male), pre-TG: 97 patients,
mean age: 13.3. post-TG:
45 patients, mean age: 15.8,
CG: 78 patients, mean age:
13.1 NR Fixed appliances NR The Piers
and Harris
self-rating
questionnaireNR Improvement
in dental
and/or facial
aesthetics
does not
necessarily
lead to an
increase in
self-esteem NR
TABLE 1: Characteristics of the included studies in the systematic review
RCT: Randomized clinical trials, CSS: cross-sectional, TG: Treated group, CG: control group, FixApp: fixed orthodontic appliances, RemoApp: removable
orthodontic appliances, FuncApp: functional appliances, FM: face mask, IOTN: Index of orthodontic treatment need, PAR: Peer assessment rating, IOCN:
Index of complexity, outcome and need, NR: not reported
From these 16 studies, 6,287 participants were included (3,996 females and 2,291 males). All these studies
included a mixture of both genders, and there was no single-gender study. Six studies evaluated adult
patients between 17 and 71 years [13,26,28,33,36,39]. Children and adolescents aged between 7 and 15 were
evaluated in nine studies [17,24,27,31,32,35,37,38,40]. Noteworthy, the Show et al.'s cohort study followed
patients over 20 years with age at baseline 11-12 years, and the mean age at the final follow-up assessment
was 31.25 years [34].
To assess patients’ SE, the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem (RSE) questionnaire was used in eight studies [13,17,26-
28,33,34,36], and the Piers and Harris self-rating questionnaire in four studies [31,37,38,40]. In addition,
Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA) was used in two studies [24,35]. Coopersmith Self-
esteem Inventory, the Global Negative Self-Evaluation Scale (GSE), and Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS)
were also used by Albino et al. [27], Birkeland et al. [32], and Varela et al. [39], respectively, to assess SE.
Self-esteem was studied with several types of malocclusions among the included studies; patients with mild-
to-moderate malocclusion were assessed by Albino et al. [27]; moderate-to-severe malocclusion by Varela et
al. [39]; Class III malocclusion in children patients was studied in three studies [37,38,40]; and cases with
dental loss or agenesis and missing lateral incisors were evaluated by de Couto Nascimento et al. [33] and
Pithon et al. [26], respectively. Jung's study focused on patients with crowding or protrusion or both of them
[17]. Romero-Maroto et al.'s trial included patients with anterior crowding less than 6 mm with Class I, Class
II, or Class III malocclusion and no need for extractions [36]. On the other hand, patients with Class I, II, or
III with or without premolar extraction were included in Choi et al.'s and Seehra et al.'s studies [28,35]. In
contrast, the other included studies lacked this information about malocclusion type [13,24,31,32,34,35].
The Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) scale defined the treatment need and assessed
malocclusion in five studies [13,24,28,32,35]. Meanwhile, the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need
(ICON), and Treatment Priority Index were used in two studies by Show et al. and Albino et al., respectively
[27,34]. Three independent orthodontists assessed malocclusion severity in Varela et al.'s trial [39].
Among the included studies, fixed orthodontic appliances were used in patients’ treatment in nine trials
[13,24,26-28,31,33,36,39]; a face mask with a bonded maxillary acrylic expansion device was used in three
trials [37,38,40]; and, in the other two trials, a mixture of fixed or removable orthodontic appliances was
used in different groups [17,32]. In the trial reported by Seehra et al., 59% and 23% of patients were treated
with class II functional appliances, followed by fixed appliances and fixed appliances only, respectively [35].
Out of the 16 included studies in this systematic review, eight compared treated patients vs the control
group (untreated patients) [26,27,32,34,36-38,40]. However, in the other six single group before-after
studies, patients' SE was compared between pre- and post-treatment [13,24,28,33,35,39]. O'Regan et al., in a
cross-sectional study, compared patients’ SE between three groups (pre-treatment group vs post-treatment
group vs control group) [31]. Lastly, the study of Jung divided patients into four groups (DB: after debonding
of fixed appliances group, FO: fixed appliances treatment group, RO: During or finished removable
appliances treatment group, NO: No orthodontic treatment group) and compared patients’ SE between them
[17].
Risk of Bias in the Included Studies
Figures 2-3 display an overview of the included RCTs' overall risk of bias. The five included RCTs were
classified as having some concern of bias [26,27,37,38,40]. Participants’ blinding was the most problematic
field for all these trials. Moreover, the random sequence generation was unclear in Albino et al.'s study,
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 8 of 20
reflecting some concern of bias in the randomization process [27]. More details about the risk of bias
assessment of the included RCTs are given in Appendix 4.
FIGURE 2: Risk of bias graph: The review authors’ judgments about
each item's risk of bias for the included RCTs
Domains:
D1: Bias arising from the randomization process
D2: Bias due to deviations from the intended intervention
D3: Bias due to missing outcome data
D4: Bias in the measurement of the outcome
D5: Bias in the selection of the reported result
Judgment:
Yellow circle: Some concerns
Green circle: Low risk of bias
FIGURE 3: Risk of bias summary: The review authors’ judgments about
each item's risk of bias, presented as percentages across all the
included RCTs
For non-RCTs, all of them were at serious risk of bias [13,17,24,28,31-36,39]. Bias in the measurement of
outcomes was the most problematic field in most of the studies [13,17,24,28,31-34,36,39], due to the
outcome assessors being aware of the intervention received by study participants. Figures 4-5 summarize the
overall risk of bias in the non-RCT-included studies. More details about the risk of bias assessment are given
in Appendix 5.
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 9 of 20
FIGURE 4: Risk of bias graph: The review authors’ judgments about
each item's risk of bias for the included non-RCTs
Domains:
D1: Bias due to confounding
D2: Bias due to selection of participants
D3: Bias in the classification of interventions
D4: Bias due to the deviations from intended interventions
D5: Bias due to missing data
D6: Bias in the measurement of outcomes
D7: Bias in the selection of the reported result
Judgment:
Red circle: Serious risk of bias; Yellow circle: Some concerns; Green circle: Low risk of bias
FIGURE 5: Risk of bias summary: The review authors’ judgments about
each item's risk of bias are presented as percentages across all the
included non-RCTs.
Effects of Interventions: Effect of Orthodontic Treatment on Self-Esteem
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 10 of 20
Sixteen studies assessed the influence of orthodontic treatment on patient SE in this systematic review. Only
six studies have reported a significant increase in patient SE scores after orthodontic treatment (P<0.05) in
these studies [13,17,26,32-34]. On the other hand, no statistically significant difference in SE scores
following orthodontic treatment was observed in the other 10 studies [24,27,28,31,35-40]. Low-quality
evidence supported this outcome based on the GRADE approach (Table 2).
Quality assessment criteria Summary of the findings
Comments
No. of studies Risk of
bias InconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOtherconsiderationsNo. of
patientsEffects Certainty
Absolute
(95% CI)Relative
(95%CI)
Effect of orthodontic treatment on self-esteem
5 RCT (PGD) 7
cohort studies 4
CSS SeriousSerious serious NotSerious None 6287- -
⨁◯◯◯
a low Six studies showed a significant
increase in self-esteem after treatment
(p 
The effect of type of orthodontic treatment on self -esteem: Fixed orthodontic appliances:
2 RCT (PGD) 6
cohort studies 4
CSS Seriousserious serious Serious Serious 1122- -
⨁◯◯◯
b Very
Low Five studies showed a significant
increase in self-esteem after treatment
(p 
Facemask and bonded maxillary acrylic expansio n device:
3 RCT (PGD) SeriousNot SeriousNot SeriousNotSerious None 73 - - ⨁⨁⨁◯c
ModerateThere was not a significant difference in
self-esteem between the control and the
experimental group.
Fixed versus removable orthodontic appliances
1 cohort study 1
CSS Seriousserious Serious Serious Serious 4868- -
⨁◯◯◯
d Very
Low Fixed orthodontic treatment had a more
significant effect on self-esteem than the
removable appliances treatment.
The effect of gender on self-esteem:
3 cohort study 2
CSS Seriousserious Serious Serious Serious 5088- -
⨁◯◯◯
e Very
Low
The effect of age on self-esteem:
2 cohort study Seriousserious Serious Serious Serious 496 - -
⨁◯◯◯
f VeryLow
TABLE 2: Summary of the findings table according to the GRADE guidelines for the included
trials
CI: confidence interval, PGD: parallel-group design, CSS: cross-sectional design
a. Decline one level for risk of bias (some concern risk of bias [26,27,37,38,40] and high risk of bias [13,17,24,28,31-36,39]), one for inconsistency*, one
for indirectness***
b. Decline one level for risk of bias (some concern risk of bias [26,27] and high risk of bias [13,17,24,28,31-33,35,36,39]), one for inconsistency*, one for
indirectness***, and one for imprecision **
c. Decline one level for risk of bias (some concern risk of bias [37,38,40])
d. Decline one level for risk of bias (high risk of bias [17,32]), one for inconsistency*, one for indirectness***, and one for imprecision **
e. Decline one level for risk of bias (high risk of bias [17,24,31,32,36]), one for inconsistency*, one for indirectness***, and one for imprecision **
f. Decline one level for risk of bias (high risk of bias [24,36]), one for inconsistency*, one for indirectness***, and one for imprecision **
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 11 of 20
* Wide variance of point estimates across studies
** Limited number of trials
*** Interventions delivered differently in different settings
First: The Effect of Type of Orthodontic Treatment on Self-Esteem
The fixed orthodontic appliances: The effect of fixed orthodontic treatment on patient SE was studied by 12
studies with different types of malocclusion [13,17,24,26-28,31-33,35,36,39]. A significant increase in SE
scores was reported in five studies [13,17,26,32,33]. However, in the other seven studies, no statistically
significant differences were noted in patients’ SE scores [24,27,28,31,35,36,39]. The strength of the evidence
supporting this outcome, according to the GRADE approach, was low.
Facemask and bonded maxillary acrylic expansion device: Treatment with face masks and bonded maxillary
acrylic expansion devices was evaluated by Mandall et al. [37] in three trials and over a long period (six years
of follow-up). Tiny changes in SE over time as a result of protraction facemask treatment have been
reported, and no statistically significant increase in SE score of children patients with class III malocclusion
was found after 15 months, three years, and six years of treatment compared to baseline (P=0.22, P=0.56,
P=0.48, respectively) [38,40]. The strength of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate, based on
the GRADE approach.
The fixed versus removable orthodontic appliances: Jung [17] and Birkeland et al.'s [32] studies investigated
the impact of fixed and removable orthodontic treatment on SE in adolescent patients aged 11-16. They
found that fixed orthodontic treatment had a more significant effect on SE (P=0.009, P<0.05, respectively)
compared to the removable appliances treatment, as no significant increase in SE score was observed after
treatment with these appliances (P=0.75, P>0.05, respectively). Notably, no information was reported in
these studies about the types of malocclusions, types of removable appliances used, or duration of
treatment. The strength of the evidence supporting this outcome was low, based on the GRADE approach.
Second: The effect of age and gender on SE: The relationship between patients’ sex and SE after orthodontic
treatment was evaluated in five studies [17,24,31,32,36]. Two assessed the effect of both patients’ ages and
gender on SE [24,36]. In regards to patients’ gender, Jung [17] noted that SE index (SI) increased in girls after
fixed appliances treatment (SI=2.71±0.45, 2.86±0.43 in the untreated group, and after the fixed orthodontic
treatment group, respectively, P<0.05). However, for the boys, orthodontic treatment did not affect SE levels
(SI=2.80±0.47, 2.89±0.48 in the untreated group, and after fixed orthodontic treatment group, respectively,
P>0.05) [17]. In contrast, Birkeland et al. [32] found that more girls than boys had developed negative self-
evaluation after orthodontic treatment (P<0.001). Avontroodt et al.'s study on adolescents showed a decrease
in SE levels for females and an increase for males between baseline and after 12 months of treatment [24].
The same results were also reported by O’Regan et al.'s study, as girls had lower SE than boys after
orthodontic treatment [31]. Despite that, different results were reported by Romero-Maroto et al. in adult
patients where no correlation between SE and gender was found [36]. Very low-quality evidence supported
this outcome based on the GRADE approach. Regarding patients’ age, the Avontroodt et al. study showed
that younger children had an improvement or stabilization in self-perception, whereas a decreased self-
perception was found for older children [24]. On the other hand, according to Romero-Maroto et al., age did
not have a significant correlation with SE, and it did not appear to be a relevant variable to consider [36].
Based on the GRADE approach, very low-quality evidence supported this outcome.
Discussion
Sixteen studies were included in this systematic review [13,17,24,26-28,31-40], assessing orthodontic
treatment's impact on SE among many children, adolescents, and adult patients. Unfortunately, the
interventions, the participants, the employed measurement scale, and the types of malocclusions were
widely varied across these studies. Therefore, the results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis.
None of the included trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, and most were at high risk. This has affected
the confidence in these findings, and the level or strength of evidence that can be gleaned from the included
papers was relatively low.
Effect of Orthodontic Treatment on Self-Esteem
No agreement between the included studies was observed regarding the influence of orthodontic treatment
on SE. Only six of the 16 included studies in this review have reported a significant increase in patients’ SE
scores after orthodontic treatment procedures (P<0.05) [13,17,26,32-34]. This may be due to the higher
satisfaction with dental appearance after fixed orthodontic treatment in these studies, which may positively
affect SE. However, the other 10 trials have not observed any statistically significant difference in SE scores
due to treatment [24,27,28,31,35-40]. This disagreement may be attributed to the fact that SE is a very
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 12 of 20
complex topic that can change greatly during life’s stages. Moreover, it is not just impacted by one factor,
such as malocclusion. Thus, there may be a range of interactions with orthodontic therapy.
The Effect of the Type of Orthodontic Treatment on Self-Esteem
The fixed orthodontic appliances: Twelve studies assessed the changes in SE levels due to treatment with
fixed orthodontic appliances. There was uncertainty in the evidence as to whether or not there was an
improvement in SE at the end of the treatment. A statistically significant increase in SE scores was reported
due to treatment in five studies [13,17,26,32,33]. In contrast, in the other studies, no differences were
reported [24,27,28,31,35,36,39]. This inconsistency may be attributed to the differences in the ages,
demographic characteristics, types of malocclusions of the samples, and the absence of controlling for other
confounder factors that could be responsible for part of the discrepancy between these studies.
Quick correct of teeth alignment can usually be achieved with fixed orthodontic treatment [17]; this may
have a positive effect on a patient's SE, as the beautiful and well-aligned smile may boost patients’
confidence and improve their appearance, which can, in turn, improve their SE [41]. On the other hand, the
effect of malocclusion on SE differs between people, depending on the personal perspective of the individual
and his satisfaction with dental appearance, as some people consider dental appearance an important factor
in their self-evaluation, while others see that dental appearance is not important and does not affect their
self-evaluation [42].
Facemask and bonded maxillary acrylic expansion device: No significant increase in SE scores as a result of
treatment with a face mask and a bonded maxillary acrylic expansion device in children with class III
malocclusion was found by Mandall et al. over six years of follow-up [37,38,40]. This may be because of that
the effect of orthopedic treatment alone was not strong enough to influence Piers-Harris scores, as it does
not have an impact on teeth appearance [37]. It is also noteworthy that the questionnaire used in these
studies does not include items specifically related to the face or teeth, and it is not designed to assess SE in
these specific areas [20].
The fixed versus removable orthodontic appliances: As expected, removable orthodontic appliances had less
effect on SE than fixed orthodontic appliances, according to Jung [17] and Birkeland et al. [32]. Usually,
malocclusion cannot be completely corrected by removable appliance treatment [17]. Thus, psychological
improvement might not be observed if some malocclusion still existed.
The Effect of Gender and Age on Self-Esteem
A few studies evaluated the effect of patients’ gender on SE after orthodontic treatment [17,24,31,32,36]. All
of these studies were conducted on adolescent patients between 11 and 16 years of age, except for the study
of Romero-Maroto et al., which included adult patients with a mean age of 29.80±9.55 years [36]. The results
of this factor were different and somehow opposed between these studies. Therefore, the relationship
between SE and patients’ gender cannot be emphasized in this review due to this disagreement. Both males
and females who feel physically attractive tend to have higher SE [43]; however, many studies have shown
that, during adolescence, girls’ attitudes about their appearance become more negative [44]. This difference
between girls and boys may be because females are usually more conscious of their body image as the
standards of aesthetics and beauty are more clearly defined for them [45]. This decline in girls’ perceived
physical attractiveness is supposed to affect SE negatively [46]. This may also be reflected in orthodontic
treatment, as females were reported to have greater concerns at the start and higher expectations at the end
of treatment than males [47]. This may explain the results of Avontroodt et al., Birkeland et al., and O’Regan
et al. studies, as females, had lower SE after orthodontic treatment than males [24,31,32].
There was insufficient evidence about the relationship between patients’ age and SE score after orthodontic
treatment. Only two cohort trials evaluated this variable after fixed orthodontic treatment [24,36] and
reported conflicting results. According to Avontroodt et al.'s study on adolescents, an inverse relationship
may exist between patients’ age at the start of treatment and SE after treatment in studied subjects. This
result disagrees with previous reviews about the development of SE over age in normal persons that have
found an increase in SE from adolescence to middle adulthood [48]. Therefore, these results may suggest
that early initiation of orthodontic treatment positively impacts SE more than in 14-year-old adolescents
[24]. Romero-Maroto et al.'s study on adult patients reported that age had no significant correlation with SE.
This difference with the previous study of Avontroodt et al. could be explained by the difference in the
patients' ages (adolescents versus adults, respectively) between these studies.
Limitations of the current review
One main limitation of this review is that only a small number of RCTs were included; all of them, including
non-RCTs, were at moderate-to-serious risk of bias. This has affected the degree of confidence in the
findings obtained. Another limitation of this systematic review was the variations between the included
studies regarding the type of malocclusion, method of SE assessment, and assessment times. Hence, the
results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis to provide an accurate estimate of the treatment effect. In
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 13 of 20
addition, the effect of gender and age on patients' SE could not be confirmed across the included studies, and
more studies are needed to establish good evidence in this field.
Conclusions
There is low-quality evidence indicating that orthodontic treatment can improve patients’ self-esteem at the
end of treatment. Results are conflicting about the effect of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances on
self-esteem. However, treatment with these appliances has a greater effect on self-esteem than that with
removable appliances. Low-quality evidence supports these results. The influence of patients’ gender or age
on self-esteem after orthodontic treatment is not clear. Further well-conducted studies using validated
measurement scales of self-esteem are required to arrive at more robust conclusions with attention paid to
the gender and age effect and the need for long-term follow-up periods.
Appendices
Database Search Strategy
CENTRAL
(TheCochrane
Library)#1 malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults #2 Self OR Self-esteem OR SE
OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the Global
Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI #3 #1 AND #2
EMBASE#1 malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults #2 Self OR Self-esteem OR SE
OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the Global
Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI #3 #1 AND #2
PubMed#1 malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults #2 Self OR Self-esteem OR SE
OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the Global
Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI #3 #1 AND #2
Google
Scholar#1 (malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults) AND (Self OR Self-esteem OR
SE OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the
Global Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI)
Scopus#1 TITLE-ABS-KEY (malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR
protrusion OR retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed
appliances OR removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults). #2 TITLE-ABS-
KEY (Self OR Self-esteem OR SE OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception
profile OR SPPC OR the Global Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI) #3 #1 AND #2
Web of
Science#1TS= (malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults). #2TS= (Self OR Self-esteem
OR SE OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the
Global Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI). #3TS= #1 AND #2
Trip (malocclusion OR Class I OR Class II OR Class III OR overjet OR overbite OR crowding OR spaces OR protrusion OR
retrognathism OR malalignment OR orthodontic* OR Orthodontic treatment OR Orthodontic therapy OR fixed appliances OR
removable appliances OR myofunctional appliances OR children OR adolescence OR adults) AND (Self OR Self-esteem OR
SE OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the
Global Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR SEI)
OpenGrey#1 orthodontic AND self-esteem #2 Self OR Self-esteem OR SE OR self-perception OR Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale OR
RSE OR Harter’s self-perception profile OR SPPC OR the Global Negative Self-evaluation OR the Self-esteem inventory OR
SEI
TABLE 3: Appendix 1: Electronic search strategy used in the current review
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 14 of 20
Orthodontic Malocclusion Self-esteem
Orthodontic treatment Class I self-perception
Orthodontic therapy Class II self
Fixed appliances Class III Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale
Removable appliances overjet Harter’s self-perception profile
Myofunctional appliances overbite the Global Negative Self-evaluation
Crowding Self-esteem inventory
Spaces Piers Harris questionnaire
malalignment
Protrusion
Retrognathism
TABLE 4: Appendix 2: Keywords used in the search
Authors Title Reasons
Vulugundam
et al. 2021Is orthodontic treatment associated with
changes in self-esteem during
adolescence? A longitudinal study Retrospective study
Majid et al.
2021 A comparison of self-esteem between
patients undergoing fixed orthodontic
treatment to those not receiving
orthodontic treatment This study did not meet the inclusion criteria for comparison: Group A: patients
currently receiving no orthodontic treatment or the start of the treatment was
less than six months. Group B: patients receiving orthodontic treatment in the
past six months or more
Arrow et al.
2011 Quality of life and psychosocial outcomes
after fixed orthodontic treatment: a 17-
year observational cohort study Retrospective study
Gazit-
Rappaport
et al. 2010Psychosocial reward of orthodontic
treatment in adult patients Self-esteem was not evaluated
Vaida et al.
2009 Correlations between the changes in
patients’ dentofacial morphology at the
end of the orthodontic treatment and the
psychological variables Self-esteem was not assessed pre-treatment, and there is no comparison with
a control group
Kenealy et
al. 2007 The Cardiff dental study: A 20-year critical
evaluation of the psychological health gain
from orthodontic treatment This study was the same as another article included in the review (A 20-year
cohort study of health gain from orthodontic treatment: Psychological
outcome), the same research team
TABLE 5: Appendix 3: Excluded articles with reasons
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 15 of 20
Study Randomization process
Deviations
from intended
interventions
Missing
outcome data
Measurement of the
outcome
Selection of the
reported result
Over-all
bias
Albino
et al.1994[27] Some concerns: No mention
of the method used for
randomisation “patients were
randomly assigned to one of
the study groups”(Page 84).Someconcerns:
Blinding of
participants and
people
delivering the
intervention
cannot be
performed. Low risk: No
dropouts were
reported. Low risk: No details of
blinding of outcome
assessors. But we
judge that the outcome
was not likely to be
influenced by
knowledge of the
intervention receivedLow risk: The
protocol was not
registered. But the
pre-defined
outcomes mentioned
in the methods
section seemed to
have been reported.Someconcerns
Mandall
et al.2010[37] Low risk: The randomization
list was generated in
randomization blocks of 10
with stratification according
to gender. The computer-
generated randomization
sequence was concealed
centrally Someconcerns:
Blinding of
participants and
people
delivering the
intervention
cannot be
performed. Low risk: 4
participants were
excluded.
missing outcome
data occurred for
reasons that are
unrelated to the
outcome Low risk: The
investigators performing
the measurements and
data analysis were
blinded from the group
assignments Low risk: The
protocol was not
registered. However,
the pre-defined
outcomes mentioned
in the methods
section seemed
reported. Someconcerns
Mandall
et al.2012[38] Low risk: The randomization
list was generated in
randomization blocks of 10
with stratification according
to gender. The computer-
generated randomization
sequence was concealed
centrally Someconcerns:
Blinding of
participants and
people
delivering the
intervention
cannot be
performed. Low risk: 10
participants were
excluded. the
result was not
biased by
missing outcome
data. Low risk: The
investigators performing
the measurements and
data analysis were
blinded from the group
assignments” Low risk: The
protocol was not
registered. However,
the pre-defined
outcomes mentioned
in the methods
section seemed
reported. Someconcerns
Mandall
et al.2016[40] Low risk: The randomization
list was generated in
randomization blocks of 10
with stratification according
to gender. The computer-
generated randomization
sequence was concealed
centrally Someconcerns:
Blinding of
participants and
people
delivering the
intervention
cannot be
performed. Low risk: 8
participants were
excluded. the
result was not
biased by
missing outcome
data Low risk: The
investigators performing
the measurements and
data analysis were
blinded from the group
assignments” Low risk: The
protocol was not
registered. However,
the pre-defined
outcomes mentioned
in the methods
section seemed
reported. Someconcerns
Pithon
et al.2021[26] Low risk: Randomization
was performed by a
researcher who was not
involved in the clinical part of
the study, using BioEstat 5.0
software Someconcerns:
Blinding of
participants and
people
delivering the
intervention
cannot be
performed. Low risk: No
dropouts were
reported. Low risk: The
investigators performing
the measurements and
data analysis were
blinded from the group
assignments” Low risk: The
protocol was not
registered. However,
the pre-defined
outcomes mentioned
in the methods
section seemed
reported. Someconcerns
TABLE 6: Appendix 4: Risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials according to the
RoB-2 tool
Study
Bias due to
confounding
Bias in the
selection of
participants
for the study
Bias in the
classification of
interventions
Bias due to
deviations
from
intended
interventions
Bias due to missing data
Bias in the
measurement of
outcomes
Bias in the
selection of
the reported
result
Overall
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 16 of 20
O'Regan et
al. 1991
[31] Moderate: The
post-treatment
group was
significantly older
than the other
groups. Serious:
Selection into
the study was
related (but not
very strongly) to
intervention and
outcome Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedLow: No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Varela et
al. 1995
[39] Moderate: Gender
(female: male
ratio), and a wide
range of
participants’ agesLow: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
weredetected Low: No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported. Serious
Birkeland et
al. 2000
[32] Low: No
confounding
factors detectedLow: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
weredetected Moderate outcome data were
not available for all
participants. Missing data
were not related to the
intervention Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Show et al.
2007 [34]Moderate:
Sociodemographic
characteristics Low: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Serious: Intervention
status is not well-
defined Low: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedModerate outcome data were
not available for all
participants. Missing data
were not related to the
intervention Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Jung et al.
2010 [17]Low: No
confounding
factors detectedSerious:
Selection into
the study was
related (but not
very strongly) to
intervention and
outcome Moderate: Intervention
status is well-defined,
and some aspects of
the assignments of
intervention status
were determined
retrospectively Low: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedLow outcome data available
for all participants. Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Seehra et
al. 2013
[35] Moderate:
Different types of
malocclusions and
small sample Serious: the
participants in
this study were
identified as
bullied in the
previous studyLow: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedModerate outcome data were
not available for all
participants. Missing data
were not related to the
intervention Low: No bias in the
measurement of
outcomes was detectedLow: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Johal et al.
2014 [13]Moderate: Gender
(female: male
ratio), and a wide
range of
participants’ agesLow: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedLow: No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been Serious
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 17 of 20
reported
Romero-
Maroto et
al. 2015
[36] Moderate:
Confounding
factors may
detected Serious:
Selection into
the study was
related (but not
very strongly) to
intervention and
outcome Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedLow No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Nascimento
et al. 2016
[33] Moderate: A wide
range of
participants’ agesLow: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedLow No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Choi SH et
al. 2017
[28] Serious: Different
types of
malocclusions with
or without
extraction, and a
wide range of
participants’ ages Low: All
participants
who have been
eligible for the
target trial were
included in the
study Low: Intervention
status is well-definedModerate Low: No dropouts were
reported Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
Avontroodt
et al. 2020
[24] Moderate:
Sociodemographic
characteristics Moderate: The
sample of
adolescents
was taken
exclusively from
the University
Hospitals
Leuven Low: Intervention
status is well-definedLow: No
deviations
from intended
interventions
were detectedModerate: Proportions of and
reasons for missing
participants were similar
across intervention groups.
The analysis addressed
missing data and is likely to
have removed any risk of
bias. Serious: No information
about outcome
assessors blinding and
the results may be
influenced by knowledge
of the intervention
received by study
participants Low: Pre-
defined
outcomes
mentioned in
the methods
section
seemed to
have been
reported Serious
TABLE 7: Appendix 5: Risk of bias for non-randomized trials according to the ROBINS-I tool
Additional Information
Author Contributions
All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the
work.
Concept and design: Mohammad Y. Hajeer, Ahmad S. Burhan, Ahmad Salim Zakaria , Khaldoun M.A.
Darwich, Ossama Aljabban, Youssef Latifeh
Drafting of the manuscript: Mohammad Y. Hajeer, Rashad I. Shaadouh, Samer T. Jaber, Mowaffak A. Ajaj,
Khaldoun M.A. Darwich
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mohammad Y. Hajeer, Ahmad S.
Burhan, Samer T. Jaber, Ahmad Salim Zakaria , Khaldoun M.A. Darwich, Ossama Aljabban, Youssef Latifeh
Supervision: Mohammad Y. Hajeer, Ahmad S. Burhan, Mowaffak A. Ajaj, Youssef Latifeh
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Rashad I. Shaadouh, Samer T. Jaber, Mowaffak A. Ajaj,
Ossama Aljabban
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 18 of 20
Disclosures
Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the
following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from
any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have
no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might
have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no
other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
References
1. Jaber ST, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS, Latifeh Y: The effect of treatment with clear aligners versus fixed
appliances on oral health-related quality of life in patients with severe crowding: a one-year follow-up
randomized controlled clinical trial . Cureus. 2022, 14:e25472. 10.7759/cureus.25472
2. Dos Santos PR, Meneghim MC, Ambrosano GM, Filho MV, Vedovello SA: Influence of quality of life, self-
perception, and self-esteem on orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017,
151:143-7. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.028
3. Bernabé E, Sheiham A, de Oliveira CM: Impacts on daily performances attributed to malocclusions by British
adolescents. J Oral Rehabil. 2009, 36:26-31. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01899.x
4. Masood M, Masood Y, Saub R, Newton JT: Need of minimal important difference for oral health-related
quality of life measures. J Public Health Dent. 2014, 74:13-20. 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2012.00374.x
5. Kara-Boulad JM, Burhan AS, Hajeer MY, Khattab TZ, Nawaya FR: Evaluation of the oral health-related
quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients undergoing lingual versus labial fixed orthodontic appliances: a
randomized controlled clinical trial . Cureus. 2022, 14:e23379. 10.7759/cureus.23379
6. Oliveira PG, Tavares RR, Freitas JC: Assessment of motivation, expectations and satisfaction of adult
patients submitted to orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013, 18:81-7. 10.1590/s2176-
94512013000200018
7. Khattab TZ, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R, Hajeer MY, Haj-Hamed Y: Speech performance and oral impairments
with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013,
83:519-26. 10.2319/073112-619.1
8. Khattab TZ, Hajeer MY, Farah H: Evaluation of the C-lingual retractor and the conventional lingual
orthodontic brackets in terms of speech performance and oral discomfort: a randomized controlled trial.
Cureus. 2022, 14:e23752. 10.7759/cureus.23752
9. Haj-Younis S, Khattab TZ, Hajeer MY, Farah H: A comparison between two lingual orthodontic brackets in
terms of speech performance and patients' acceptance in correcting class II, division 1 malocclusion: a
randomized controlled trial. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016, 21:80-8. 10.1590/2177-6709.21.4.080-088.oar
10. Mousa MM, Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY: Pain, discomfort, and functional impairments when retracting upper
anterior teeth using two-step retraction with Transpalatal arches versus en-masse retraction with mini-
implants: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus. 2023, 15:e33524. 10.7759/cureus.33524
11. Saleh M, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A: Assessment of pain and discomfort during early orthodontic treatment of
skeletal class III malocclusion using the removable mandibular retractor appliance. Eur J Paediatr Dent.
2013, 14:119-24.
12. Idris G, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A: Acceptance and discomfort in growing patients during treatment with two
functional appliances: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012, 13:219-24.
13. Johal A, Alyaqoobi I, Patel R, Cox S: The impact of orthodontic treatment on quality of life and self-esteem
in adult patients. Eur J Orthod. 2015, 37:233-7. 10.1093/ejo/cju047
14. Mortada AA, Burhan AS, Hajeer MY, Nawaya FR, Sahtout GF: Do the most attractive faces of patients with
class II Division 1 malocclusion differ from those with the least attractive faces in terms of angular and
proportional measurements assessed on frontal and lateral photographs?. Cureus. 2023, 15:e33455.
10.7759/cureus.33455
15. Kusaibati AM, Sultan K, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS, Alam MK: Adult patient expectations and satisfaction: can
they be influenced by viewing the three-dimensional predicted outcome before fixed orthodontic treatment
of dental crowding?. J World Fed Orthod. 2023, 10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.08.005
16. Jung MH: An evaluation of self-esteem and quality of life in orthodontic patients: effects of crowding and
protrusion. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85:812-9. 10.2319/091814.1
17. Jung MH: Evaluation of the effects of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on self-esteem in an
adolescent population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010, 138:160-6. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.040
18. Badran SA: The effect of malocclusion and self-perceived aesthetics on the self-esteem of a sample of
Jordanian adolescents. Eur J Orthod. 2010, 32:638-44. 10.1093/ejo/cjq014
19. Myers DG: Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY; 2009.
20. Piers EV: The reliability of the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, Second Edition . Marshall
UniversityProQuest Dissertations Publishing, West Los Angeles, CA; 1984.
21. Beane JA, Lipka RP: Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, and the Curriculum . Teachers College Press, New York, NY;
1984.
22. King KA: Self-concept and self-esteem: a clarification of terms . J Sch Health. 1997, 67:68-70.
10.1111/j.1746-1561.1997.tb06303.x
23. Harter S: Self-perception profile for children: manual and questionnaires . University of Denver, Denver, CO;
2012.
24. Avontroodt S, Lemiere J, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M, Verdonck A, Laenen A, Willems G: The evolution of
self-esteem before, during and after orthodontic treatment in adolescents with dental malocclusion, a
prospective cohort study. Eur J Orthod. 2020, 42:257-62. 10.1093/ejo/cjz048
25. Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Moffitt TE, Robins RW, Poulton R, Caspi A: Low self-esteem during
adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Dev
Psychol. 2006, 42:381-90. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.381
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 19 of 20
26. Pithon MM, Vargas EO, da Silva Coqueiro R, Lacerda-Santos R, Tanaka OM, Maia LC: Impact of oral-health-
related quality of life and self-esteem on patients with missing maxillary lateral incisor after orthodontic
space closure: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2021, 43:208-14.
10.1093/ejo/cjaa075
27. Albino JE, Lawrence SD, Tedesco LA: Psychological and social effects of orthodontic treatment . J Behav
Med. 1994, 17:81-98. 10.1007/BF01856884
28. Choi SH, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ: Changes in psychological health, subjective food intake ability
and oral health-related quality of life during orthodontic treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 2017, 44:860-9.
10.1111/joor.12556
29. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, et al.: RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials . BMJ.
2019, 366:l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898
30. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al.: ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised
studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016, 355:i4919. 10.1136/bmj.i4919
31. O'Regan JK, Dewey ME, Slade PD, Lovius BB: Self-esteem and aesthetics. Br J Orthod. 1991, 18:111-8.
10.1179/bjo.18.2.111
32. Birkeland K, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ: Relationship between occlusion and satisfaction with dental appearance in
orthodontically treated and untreated groups. A longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod. 2000, 22:509-18.
10.1093/ejo/22.5.509
33. de Couto Nascimento V, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC, de Almeida Cardoso M, Valarelli DP, de Almeida-Pedrin
RR: Impact of orthodontic treatment on self-esteem and quality of life of adult patients requiring oral
rehabilitation. Angle Orthod. 2016, 86:839-45. 10.2319/072215-496.1
34. Shaw WC, Richmond S, Kenealy PM, Kingdon A, Worthington H: A 20-year cohort study of health gain from
orthodontic treatment: psychological outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007, 132:146-57.
10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.009
35. Seehra J, Newton JT, Dibiase AT: Interceptive orthodontic treatment in bullied adolescents and its impact
on self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life. Eur J Orthod. 2013, 35:615-21. 10.1093/ejo/cjs051
36. Romero-Maroto M, Santos-Puerta N, González Olmo MJ, Peñacoba-Puente C: The impact of dental
appearance and anxiety on self-esteem in adult orthodontic patients . Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015, 18:143-
55. 10.1111/ocr.12091
37. Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, et al.: Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A
multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up. J Orthod. 2010, 37:149-61.
10.1179/14653121043056
38. Mandall NA, Cousley R, DiBiase A, et al.: Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A
multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 3-year follow-up. J Orthod. 2012, 39:176-85.
10.1179/1465312512Z.00000000028
39. Varela M, García-Camba JE: Impact of orthodontics on the psychologic profile of adult patients: a
prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995, 108:142-8. 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70076-5
40. Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, et al.: Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for
orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. J Orthod. 2016, 43:164-
75. 10.1080/14653125.2016.1201302
41. Anbu S, Sainath MC, Preeti R, Satish R, Subashri K, Mohammed A: Qualitative assessment of psychological
aspects of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Univ J Surg Surg Spec. 2019, 5:
42. Gavric A, Mirceta D, Jakobovic M, Pavlic A, Zrinski MT, Spalj S: Craniodentofacial characteristics, dental
esthetics-related quality of life, and self-esteem. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015, 147:711-8.
10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.027
43. Feingold A: Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis . Psychol Bull. 1994, 116:429-56.
10.1037//0033-2909.116.3.429
44. Harter S: Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents . Self-Esteem. The
Plenum Series in Social / Clinical Psychology. Baumeister RF (ed): Springer, Boston, MA; 1993. 10.1007/978-
1-4684-8956-9_5
45. Holmes A: The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment . Br J Orthod. 1992, 19:287-97.
10.1179/bjo.19.4.287
46. Kling KC, Hyde JS, Showers CJ, Buswell BN: Gender differences in self-esteem: a meta-analysis . Psychol
Bull. 1999, 125:470-500.
47. Pachêco-Pereira C, Pereira JR, Dick BD, Perez A, Flores-Mir C: Factors associated with patient and parent
satisfaction after orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015,
148:652-9. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.039
48. Orth U, Robins RW: The development of self-esteem . Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014, 23:381-7.
10.1177/0963721414547414
2023 Shaadouh et al. Cureus 15(10): e48064. DOI 10.7759/cureus.48064 20 of 20
Article
Full-text available
Malocclusion was a group of dental deviations that have a particular psychological influence on the society. Objective: To assess the correlations between malocclusion severity and its effects on self-confidence and facial appearance in patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Methods: The hospital-based study was performed at Orthodontic Department, Institute of Dentistry of Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Participants aged 7 to 30 years who were diagnosed with varying degrees of malocclusion, were included in the study while those with congenital or traumatic facial deformities unrelated to malocclusion were excluded from the study. Data were collected via questionnaires (Rosenberg Self Esteem and Dental Aesthetic Index) and clinical assessments. Correlation analysis was used as data analysis. Results: The research comprised of 383 individuals, with 110 (28.7%) were males, and 273(71.3%) females. 361 (94.3%) participants having aesthetics problem, 19 (5.0%) reported with Functional issues, and 3(0.8%) had found with Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) complications. There were moderate to strong negative correlations between malocclusion severity and self-confidence (r=-0.45, p < 0.05) and between the impact on facial appearance and self-confidence (r=-0.52, p < 0.05) A positive correlation was observed between malocclusion severity and facial appearance impact (r=0.65, p < 0.05) (Table 5). Conclusions: The study found that malocclusion significantly impacts self-confidence and facial appearance, with 71% of participants reporting negative effects on appearance and 47.3% experiencing reduced self-confidence.
Article
Full-text available
(1) Objective: This study aimed to investigate how patients’ perceptions of their dental aesthetics and their sense of self-esteem are related. (2) Methods: This cross-sectional survey recruited 141 new patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire consisting of three parts: the Malaysian Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ), Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES-M), and Aesthetics Component of the Index of Orthodontics Treatment Need (IOTN-AC). Clinical assessment comprised the Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontics Treatment Need (IOTN-DHC). Multiple linear regression was performed, with self-esteem as the dependent variable, while the independent variables comprised the domains of PIDAQ; IOTN-AC; IOTN-DHC; and patients’ demographics, such as age, gender, and their level of education. (3) Results: The response rate was 96.5% (n = 136 respondents). The multiple linear regression found that, when the other predictors in the model are held constant, Social Impact, Aesthetic Concern, and Dental Self-Confidence are the factors that significantly contributed to explaining the variation in self-esteem, accounting for, 3.9%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. The entire model explained 23% of the variation in self-esteem. (4) Conclusions: Domains of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics act as predictors of self-esteem in orthodontic treatment-seeking patients.
Article
Full-text available
An important requisite of orthodontic treatment is achieving well balanced, pleasant face. Precise diagnosis and treatment planning, on facial hard and soft tissue norms basis, is fundamental for that purpose. Objective: To use photogrammetry technique on standardized photographs, and determination of mean angular and proportional parameters defining characteristics of facial soft tissue, on an adult Pakistani population. Methods: A cross sectional study, on 78 subjects from OPD and students of FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry, were selected. Data were entered and SPSS 2.0 was used for analysis. Mean and standard deviations were used for the quantitate variables used in the study. To control confounders with respect to age and gender, stratification was done and independent t-test was used, taking statistically significant p-value at ≤ 0.05. Results: All parameters were statistically insignificant on the basis of gender and age. The average values of nasolabial angle, angle of facial convexity and facial height proportion were greater in males than in females. The mean values of mentolabial angle, lower face to total face height and facial index were found to be greater in females as compared to males. Conclusions: This study concluded that gender and age based average values for angular and proportional parameters should be used while planning cases for Pakistani population for orthodontic treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Background This study aimed to evaluate the levels of pain and discomfort associated with employing mini-implants as a temporary skeletal anchorage device compared to the traditional transpalatal arches (TPAs) during upper anterior teeth retraction in patients with upper dentoalveolar protrusion and to determine the level of acceptance of both techniques among patients. Methodology The study sample consisted of 38 patients (29 women and nine men) with an average age of 21.7 years. The patients were randomly and equally distributed into two groups. In the first group: upper anterior teeth were en-masse retracted using mini-implants (the TAD group), whereas, in the second group, TPAs were used during the two-step retraction of upper anterior teeth (the TPA group). Standardized questionnaires were distributed to all patients after 24 hours of mini-implant application. The questionnaire asked the patients to rate their pain perception, swelling sensation, eating difficulties, talking impairments, and cleansing difficulties on a four-point Likert scale on the third-day, one-week, two-week, and one-month follow-ups after the anchorage application. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests were used to evaluate intragroup changes, whereas Mann-Whitney U tests were employed to examine intergroup differences. Results Patients in the TAD group had higher pain and swelling levels than those in the TPA group, and differences were statistically significant at the first three assessment time points. The differences between the two groups were statistically insignificant regarding eating and talking difficulties, whereas differences were statistically significant for brushing difficulties. These impairments decreased to almost normal levels after one month of treatment initiation. Conclusions TPAs, when used for anchorage in the two-step retraction technique, were less problematic compared to mini-implants with en-masse retraction, where the sensation of pain or swelling around the mini-implants did not last for more than a week. The difficulties of cleaning, chewing, and speaking in the presence of mini-implants were temporary and mostly disappeared within two weeks of mini-implant application.
Article
Full-text available
Background This study investigated the facial angles and proportions affecting facial aesthetics in patients with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion between those labeled the most attractive and least attractive in each gender. Methodology The study sample included pretreatment extraoral photographs of 60 patients (30 males and 30 females) with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion according to the ANB angle aged between 18 and 21 years. A panel of 240 laypersons (aged 20-25 years; the average age of 22.5 ± 0.37 years; 120 males and 120 females) scored the aesthetic evaluation of photographs using the visual analog scale (VAS). Two groups were created according to the mean aesthetic scores of each photograph, namely, the most attractive group with the highest aesthetic scores, and the least attractive group with the least aesthetic scores. A total of 12 patients in each group were selected. Subsequently, their angular and proportional measurements on the frontal and lateral photographs were calculated. Independent-sample t-tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in these measurements between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in frontal variables between the most attractive and least attractive groups in each gender. The angle NPog-FH was significantly greater in the most attractive males than in the least attractive males, while there was no significant difference between the most attractive and least attractive females regarding any of the profile variables. Conclusions The most attractive females with class II division 1 were similar to the least attractive on evaluating the frontal and profile variables. In contrast, the most attractive males with class II division 1 malocclusion had more protrusion in the chin than the least attractive male patients, with no differences in other profile and frontal variables. These findings suggest considering the chin position during the diagnosis and treatment planning of class II division 1 malocclusion patients.
Article
Full-text available
Objective To compare the level of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between patients receiving clear aligners or fixed appliances within one year of follow-up using Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14), a validated self-administered questionnaire. Materials and methods A single-centered, two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 36 adult patients (19 females, 17 males; age range: 18 to 25 years) who had severe crowding and require orthodontic treatment with first premolars extraction. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups: The clear aligners (CA) group and the fixed appliances (FA) group. OHRQoL was assessed using the OHIP-14 tool at various times during comprehensive orthodontic therapy: baseline (T0), one week (T1), two weeks (T2), one month (T3), 6 months (T4), and 12 months (T5) after starting the active orthodontic treatment. Mann-Whitney U test or Friedman test were used to detect significant differences. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results All of the selected patients entered the statistical analysis stage. There were no significant differences between the CA and FA groups for the psychological discomfort, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap (P˃0.05) at almost all assessment times. For the functional limitation, physical pain, physical disability, and the overall score, there were significant differences between the studied groups (P˂0.05), with the FA group having higher mean scores than the CA group in all of the assessment times. Conclusion Patients' treatment with clear aligners has less impact on OHRQoL than those treated using conventional fixed appliances during the first year of treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Background The C-lingual retractor (CR) is an alternative lingual technique to retract anterior teeth with minimum torque expression loss. Although the effects of lingual braces upon speech and oral comfort have been studied previously, there is no published data about the C-lingual retractor in this aspect. The aims of this trial were to compare (1) speech performance based on objective acoustic analysis and (2) levels of oral impairment between C-lingual retractor and conventional lingual brackets (LBs). Materials and methods A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients with class II division 1 malocclusion who sought orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics, Hama University Dental School. Thirty-six patients who met inclusion criteria were randomly selected and divided into two groups. Eighteen patients in the C-lingual retractor group (CR group) were treated with a C-lingual retractor, whereas eighteen patients in the lingual brackets group (LB group) were treated with conventional lingual brackets (Stealth H, American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA). Fricative /s/ sound spectrograms were analyzed before (T0), immediately after (T1), one month after (T2), and three months after appliance placement (T3). The levels of oral discomfort were assessed using standardized questionnaires to evaluate speech, irritation, chewing difficulties, and other oral impacts. Results At all assessment times, the C-lingual retractor caused significant deteriorations in articulation, whereas in the lingual brackets group these deteriorations were statistically significant at T1 and T2 (P<0.001) but not significant at T3 (P=0.073). No intergroup differences were detected. Questionnaire analysis revealed that irritation of the tongue was significantly higher in the lingual brackets group after 24 hours of appliances' placement (P=0.007), whereas speech and mastication problems were insignificantly higher in the C-lingual retractor group. Conclusions The findings indicate that the C-lingual retractor has insignificantly a little more interaction with sound production than lingual brackets. Although the levels of oral impacts were almost similar among both groups, more tongue irritation was observed in the lingual brackets group. However, the oral discomfort decreased over the observation period in both groups.
Article
Full-text available
Background Wearing fixed orthodontic appliances may negatively impact oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) during treatment. This study aimed to compare the OHRQoL of patients treated with labial or lingual appliances. Methodology A total of 38 patients (23 females, 15 males; mean age: 21.3 years) with class I malocclusion and moderate crowding in the upper and lower dental arches were included. These patients were planned to be treated on a non-extraction basis and were randomly divided into the following two groups: the lingual appliance (LA) group and the buccal appliance (BA) group. The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used to measure the OHRQoL at the following six assessment times: before treatment (T0), one week after treatment (T1), one month after treatment (T2), three months after treatment (T3), six months after treatment (T4), and at the end of the active treatment (T5). Results In total, 19 patients in each group were included in the final analysis with no dropouts. In both groups, the overall OHIP-14 scores increased and peaked on the first week following appliance placement and then significantly decreased over time. The LA group had significantly greater overall OHIP‑14 scores than the labial group at T1 (p < 0.001) and T2 (p = 0.004) only. Conclusions The OHRQoL improved in both lingual and labial groups after treatment. Moreover, it was better in the labial group compared to the lingual group during the first month of treatment. In both groups, the greatest deterioration in OHRQoL occurred in the first week and gradually decreased over time.
Article
Background: The maxillary lateral incisor is one of the teeth most likely to suffer agenesis, resulting in spacing between the central incisor and the canine. Objective: To compare maxillary lateral incisor agenesis with space closure treatment versus non-treatment based on measurements of the self-perceived oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and self-esteem of the participants. Subjects and methods: A total of 44 people, aged 17-49 years, with missing lateral incisors were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 22 in each)-a treated group in which the space was orthodontically closed (TG) and a control group that remained untreated (CG). Randomization was performed by a researcher who was not involved in the clinical part of the study. The outcomes were assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile and Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, which were applied before (phase 1) and after (phase 2) the orthodontic treatment in the TG, and at baseline (phase 1) and 12 months after (phase 2) in the CG. All the data were blindly evaluated, supporting the single-blinded design of the study. Results: All participants finished the randomized controlled trial, and the demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. In phase 1, the levels of self-esteem and OHRQoL at baseline were similar (P = 0.079, P = 0.693, respectively). In phase 2, the self-esteem scores of the CG decreased and the OHRQoL increased (P = 0.005, P < 0.001, respectively), while self-esteem increased in the TG and the OHRQoL decreased (P < 0.001). The CG had lower scores than the TG for self-esteem, but the opposite was observed for OHRQoL (P < 0.001). Limitations: Information bias may have occurred. Since the questionnaires could not have been applied at the same time in both groups, the time difference between the two assessments may have led to random and systematic error. Conclusions: The spacing resulting from missing maxillary lateral incisors had a negative impact on the OHRQoL and self-esteem of the participants, while orthodontically closing those spaces had a positive impact on those aspects. Clinical trial registration: This study was not registered. Protocol: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
Article
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
Article
Objectives: This study aimed (1) to investigate the evolution of self-esteem through orthodontic treatment, and (2) to study how key demographic factors would affect these evolutions and to assess relationships between self-esteem and orthodontic treatment need. Methods: This longitudinal prospective cohort study comprised of 326 adolescents (172 girls and 154 boys) aged 11-16 years; data were obtained from 325 adolescents at T0 and 123 at T2. Three hundred twenty-one adolescents filled in questionnaires at T0, whereas 118 at T2. They were selected in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium, where they all received orthodontic treatment. Self-esteem was assessed with the Dutch adaptation of the Harter's test and treatment need was defined by the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Data were analysed with multivariate linear models and Spearman correlations. Results: There was no evidence of a change in global self-esteem during orthodontic treatment. A significant gender by time interaction for scholastic competence (P < 0.05), a decrease in self-esteem for females, and an increase for males between T0 and T1 was observed. A significant age (at T0) by time interaction for physical appearance and global self-worth (P < 0.05) and a negative correlation between self-esteem and self-assessed IOTN aesthetic component for the subdomain of close friendship (P < 0.05) were found. Conclusions: Global self-esteem acts as a stable construct during orthodontic treatment. The subdomains of self-esteem could be influenced by age and gender. Self-esteem and the subjective need for orthodontic treatment were found to be negatively correlated.
Article
Background: Assessing changes in patient's psychological health and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) over time during orthodontic treatment may help clinicians to treat patients more carefully. Objectives: To evaluate changes in mental health, self-reported masticatory ability, and OHRQoL during orthodontic treatment in adults. Methods: This prospective study included 66 adults (30 men, 36 women; mean age, 24.2 ± 5.2 years). Each patient completed the Korean versions of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, Rosenberg self-esteem scale, key subjective food intake ability (KFIA) test for five key foods, and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14K) at baseline (T0), 12 months after treatment initiation (T1), and debonding (T2). Results: All variables changed with time. Self-esteem and the total OHIP-14K score significantly decreased and increased, respectively, at T1, with a particular increase in the psychological and social disabilities scores. There were no significant differences in any questionnaire scores before and after treatment. The total OHIP-14K score was positively correlated with trait anxiety and depression, and negatively correlated with self-esteem and KFIA at T0, regardless of the treatment duration. Older patients showed a significant increase in the total OHIP-14K score at T1 and T2. OHRQoL worsened with an increase in the treatment duration. Conclusions: Our results suggest that OHRQoL temporarily deteriorates, with the development of psychological and social disabilities, during orthodontic treatment. This is related to the baseline age, psychological health, and self-reported masticatory function. However, patients recover once the treatment is complete. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.