Perception of the esthetic impact of mandibular incisor extraction treatment on laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students

Objective: To evaluate the degree of perception of laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students regarding dental esthetics in cases with mandibular central incisor extraction. Materials and Methods: Using a smile photograph of a person with normal occlusion and all teeth, modifications were made to reflect the extraction of a mandibular incisor of various compositions and sizes. For this purpose a program specifically for image manipulation (Adobe Photoshop CS3, Adobe Systems Inc) was used. After manipulation the images were printed on photographic paper, attached to a questionnaire and distributed to laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students (n = 90) to evaluate the degree of perception and esthetic using a scale of attractiveness, where 0 = hardly attractive, 5 = attractive, and 10 = very attractive. The differences between examiners were checked by the Mann-Whitney test. All the statistics were performed with a confidence level of 95%. Results: The results demonstrated the skill of the dental professionals and dental students in perceiving the difference between cases of normal occlusion and cases where an incisor was lacking (P < .05). The photograph in which the lateral incisors were shown to be larger than the central incisor was the one that obtained the highest value among the cases of extraction in all groups of evaluators. Conclusions: It can be concluded that dental professionals and dental students are more skillful at identifying deviation from normality. In addition, central incisor extraction should always be discarded when there are other treatment options available. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:732-738.)

Width of buccal and posterior corridors: differences between cases treated with asymmetric and symmetric extractions

OBJECTIVE: To verify if there is difference in the buccal and posterior corridor width in cases treated with extraction of one and four premolars. METHODS: Through posed smile photographs of 23 Class II patients, subdivision, treated with extraction of one premolar and 25 Class I and Class II patients, subdivision, treated with extraction of four premolars, the percentage of buccal and posterior corridor width was calculated. The two protocols of extractions were compared regarding the buccal and posterior corridor width by independent t tests. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference on the buccal and posterior corridor widths between patients treated with symmetric and asymmetric extraction. CONCLUSION: The buccal and posterior corridor did not differ between the evaluated protocols of extractions.