Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smile attractiveness in class III patients after orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The study’s objective was to compare the smile attractiveness in patients with class III malocclusion treated with orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery.

Material and methods

The sample consisted of 30 patients with class III malocclusion treated without extractions divided into two groups, according to the treatment performed: G1, orthodontic camouflage, consisting of 15 patients (9 female; 6 male) with mean initial age of 21.26 years (SD = 7.39) and mean final age of 24.52 years (SD = 7.10). The mean treatment time was 3.26 years (SD = 1.50). G2, ortho-surgical, consisting of 15 patients (8 females; 7 males), with mean initial age of 23.12 years (SD=7.37), mean final age of 25.82 years (SD = 7.14) and mean treatment time of 2.71 years (SD = 0.90). The smile attractiveness was evaluated in black and white photographs of posed smiles taken before and after treatment, with a numerical rating scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the least attractive and 10 the greatest smile attractiveness. The smiles were evaluated in a questionnaire by 111 participants, 67 orthodontists (mean age 41.31 years, SD = 9.44) and 44 laypeople (mean age 41.41 years, SD = 14.38). Intergroup comparison was performed with independent t test.

Results

There was a significant improvement in the smile attractiveness with both camouflage and ortho-surgical treatments. The smile attractiveness was similar between the camouflage and surgical groups at the beginning. There was a significantly greater improvement in smile attractiveness with treatment in the surgical group than in the camouflage group, and at the end of treatment, the surgical group showed greater smile attractiveness than the camouflage group. Orthodontists considered the smiles more attractive both at the beginning and the end of treatment when compared to the assessment made by laypeople.

Conclusion

The ortho-surgical treatment promoted a greater improvement in the smile attractiveness, and at the final stage, a greater smile attractiveness than the orthodontic camouflage.

Clinical relevance

Smile attractiveness is an important characteristic of the final result of orthodontic treatment. Knowing which treatment protocol will provide a better improvement and outcome regarding smile esthetics is essential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ritter DE, Gandini LG Jr, Pinto Ados S, Ravelli DB, Locks A (2006) Analysis of the smile photograph. World J Orthod 7:279–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2007) Smile attractiveness: self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod 77:759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zachrisson BU (1998) Esthetic factors involved in anterior tooth display and the smile: vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod 32:432–445

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ghaleb N, Bouserhal J, Bassil-Nassif N (2011) Aesthetic evaluation of profile incisor inclination. Eur J Orthod 33:228–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berto PM, Lima CS, Lenza MA, Faber J (2009) Esthetic effect of orthodontic appliances on a smiling face with and without a missing maxillary first premolar. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:S55–S60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Claudino D, Traebert J (2013) Malocclusion, dental aesthetic self-perception and quality of life in a 18 to 21 year-old population: a cross section study. BMC Oral Health 13:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Işıksal E, Hazar S, Akyalçın S (2006) Smile esthetics: perception and comparison of treated and untreated smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burns NR, Musich DR, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P (2010) Class III camouflage treatment: what are the limits? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:9 e1-9–9 ee13; discussion 9-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Lux CJ, Schuster G (2002) Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:27–37 discussion 37-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Feu D, de Oliveira BH, de Oliveira Almeida MA, Kiyak HA, Miguel JA (2010) Oral health-related quality of life and orthodontic treatment seeking. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138:152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldin B (1989) Labial root torque: effect on the maxilla and incisor root apex. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 95:208–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leon-Salazar V, Janson G, de Freitas MR, de Almeida RR, Leon-Salazar R (2009) Nonextraction treatment of a skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:736–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Proffit WR, White RP Jr (1990) Who needs surgical-orthodontic treatment? Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 5:81–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Araújo EA, Araújo CVD (2008) Non-surgical clinical approach in the treatment of Class III malocclusion. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 13:128–157

  15. Georgalis K, Woods MG (2015) A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery. Aust Orthod J 31:138–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Watanabe JHM, Fitarelli F, Freitas DS, Cançado RH, Oliveira RC, Oliveira RCG, Valarelli FP, Freitas KMS (2020) Comparison of the facial profile attractiveness in Class III borderline patients after surgical or compensatory orthodontic treatment. J Clin Exp Dent 12:e348–e353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Negreiros PO, Freitas KMS, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Janson G, Freitas MR (2020) Smile attractiveness in cases treated with self-ligating and conventional appliances with and without rapid maxillary expansion. Orthod Craniofacial Res 23:413–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarver DM (2001) The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 120:98–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zarif Najafi H, Oshagh M, Khalili MH, Torkan S (2015) Esthetic evaluation of incisor inclination in smiling profiles with respect to mandibular position. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 148:387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Janson G, Branco NC, Morais JF, Freitas MR (2014) Smile attractiveness in patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions treated with different tooth extraction protocols. Eur J Orthod 36:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TMF, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JRP (2011) Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 81:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB (2003) Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cancado RH, De Freitas KM, Valarelli FP, Vieira Bda S, Neves LS (2015) Treatment of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion with the Biofunctional System. J Clin Orthod 49:717–725

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janson G, de Souza JE, Alves Fde A, Andrade P Jr, Nakamura A, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF (2005) Extreme dentoalveolar compensation in the treatment of Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 128:787–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Valarelli FP, Nascimento FEC, Batista DM, Freitas KMS, Cancado RH (2018) Class III camouflage treatment with the Biofunctional technique. J Clin Orthod 52:351–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McNamara L, McNamara JA Jr, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T (2008) Hard-and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133:491–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schabel BJ, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T (2009) Q-sort assessment vs visual analog scale in the evaluation of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:S61–S71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ackerman JL, Ackerman MB, Brensinger CM, Landis JR (1998) A morphometric analysis of the posed smile. Clin Orthod Res 1:2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roden-Johnson D, Gallerano R, English J (2005) The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:343–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Desai S, Upadhyay M, Nanda R (2009) Dynamic smile analysis: changes with age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:310. e1-310–310. e1-e10

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hulsey CM (1970) An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 57:132–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin J, Gu Y (2003) Preliminary investigation of nonsurgical treatment of severe skeletal Class III malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Angle Orthod 73:401–410. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0401:PIONTO>2.0.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sant'Ana E, Janson M (2003) Orthodontics and orthognathic surgery - from planning to finalization. R Dental Press Ortodon Ortop Facial 8:119–129

  35. Ciucchi P, Kiliaridis S (2017) Incisor inclination and perceived tooth colour changes. Eur J Orthod 39:554–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rabie AB, Wong RW, Min GU (2008) Treatment in borderline class III malocclusion: orthodontic camouflage (extraction) versus orthognathic surgery. Open Dent J 2:38–48. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210600802010038

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Park JH, Yu J, Bullen R (2017) Camouflage treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion with conventional orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 151:804–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Naini FB, Manouchehri S, Al-Bitar ZB, Gill DS, Garagiola U, Wertheim D (2019) The maxillary incisor labial face tangent: clinical evaluation of maxillary incisor inclination in profile smiling view and idealized aesthetics. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 41:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0214-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA (1999) Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 11:311–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaya B, Uyar R (2013) Influence on smile attractiveness of the smile arc in conjunction with gingival display. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF (2007) The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofacial Res 10:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00378.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Imani MM, Sanei E, Niaki EA, Shahroudi AS (2018) Esthetic preferences of orthodontists, oral surgeons, and laypersons for Persian facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 154:412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Ingá University Center Uningá, Rod PR 317, Maringá, PR, 6114 –87035-510, Brazil

    Gabriela Martins Reis, Renata Cristina Oliveira, Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Oliveira, Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas & Fabricio Pinelli Valarelli

  2. Freitas Dentistry Institute, Bauru, Brazil

    Daniel Salvatore de Freitas

  3. Clinical Practice, Boituva, Brazil

    Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino

Authors
  1. Gabriela Martins Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Salvatore de Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renata Cristina Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fabricio Pinelli Valarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reis, G.M., de Freitas, D.S., Oliveira, R.C. et al. Smile attractiveness in class III patients after orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery. Clin Oral Invest 25, 6791–6797 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03966-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03966-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation