Societal perceptions of dentofacial appearances of patients with malocclusion: a systematic review
Aim: This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether or not there is evidence enough to support the hypothesis that society promotes judgments on the facial aesthetics of individuals with malocclusion. Methods: Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Bireme, BBO, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases, supplemented by an additional manual search. Results: The present study included all articles that appeared in each of these databases between January 1965 and February 2015. Inclusion criteria were based on the articles whose primary focus was the societal perception of dentofacial appearances, written in English; observational and experimental epidemiological studies (Cross-sectional, Longitudinal, Cohort, Randomized Clinical Trial, Case-Control); and systematic reviews. Review articles, clinical case reports, laboratorial experiment studies, and abstracts were excluded. This search identified 2,530 articles, of which four fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, only one study showed a high level of scientific evidence. The main flaws found included blind assessment of the measurement, validity of the measurement methods, error analysis of the method, and confounding factors not reported in all articles. Conclusion: According to this systematic review, it could be concluded that there is a need for further studies with more efficient methodological qualities.
Uniterms: Orthodontics. Malocclusion. Visual perception. Systematic review.
2. Marques LS, Filogônio CA, Filogônio CB, Pereira LJ, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, et al. Aesthetic impact of malocclusion in the daily living of Brazilian
adolescents. J. Orthod. 2009; 36(3):152-9.
3. Shaw WC, Lewis HG, Robertson NRE. Perception of malocclusion. Br. Dent. J. 1975; 138(6):211-7.
4. Peres KG, Traebert ESA, Marcenes W. Diferenças entre autopercepção e critérios normativos na identificação das oclusopatias. Rev. Saúde
Pública. 2002; 36(2):230-6.
5. Maltagliati LA, Montes LAP. Análise dos fatores que motivam os pacientes adultos a buscarem o tratamento ortodôntico. Rev. Dent. Press. Ortodon. Ortoped. Facial. 2007; 12(6):54-60.
6. Dracker HL. Handicapping labio-lingual conditions: proposed index for public health purposes. Am. J. Orthod. 1960; 46(4):295-305.
7. O’Brien K, Wright J L, Conboy F, Macfarlane T, Mandall N. The child perception questionnaire is valid for malocclusions in the United Kingdom. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(4):536-540.
8. Marques LS, Filogônio CA, Filogônio CB, Pereira LJ, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, et al. Aesthetic impact of malocclusion in the daily living of Brazilian
adolescents. J. Orthod. 2009; 36(3):152-9.
9. Jokovic A, Locker D, Tompson B, Guyatt G. Questionnaire for measuring oral health-related quality of life in eight-to ten-year old children. Pediatr. Dent. 2004; 26(6):512-8.
10. Klages U, Claus N, Wehrbein H, Zentner A. Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006; 28(2):103-11.
11. Broder HL, McGrath C, Cisneros GJ. Questionnaire development: face validity and item impact testing of child oral health impact profile. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2007; 35(1):8-19.
12. Liu Z, Mcgrath C, Hägg U. The impact of malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need on the quality of life. A systematic review. Angle Orthod.
13. Hassan AH, Amin Hel-S. Association of orthodontic treatment needs and oral healthrelated quality of life in young adults. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(1):42-7.
14. Broder HL, McGrath C, Cisneros GJ. Questionnaire development: face validity and item impact testing of child oral health impact profile. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2007; 35(1):8-19.
15. Sardenberg F, Martins MT, Bendo CB, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Auad SM, et al. Malocclusion and oral health-related quality of life in Brazilian
school children. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83(1):83-9
16. Antczak AA, Tang J, Chalmers TC. Quality assessment of randomized control trials in dental research. J. Period. Res. 1986; 21(4):305-14.
17. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is
blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials. 1996; 17(1):1-12.
18. Andrade A. da S, Gameiro GH, Derossi M, Gavião MB. Posterior crossbite and functional changes. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(2):380-6.
19. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009; 151(2):65-94.
20. Shaw WC. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness a judged by pears and lay adults. Am. J. Orthod. 1981; 79(4):309-14.
21. Bernabé E, Sheiham A, Tsakos G, Messias de Oliveira C. The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life in adolescents: a case-control study. Eur. J. Orthod. 2008; 30(6):515-20.
22. York J, Holtzman J. Facial attractiveness and the aged. SCD. 1999; 17:84-8.
23. Chen M, Wang DW, Wu LP. Fixed orthodontic appliance therapy and its impact on oral healthrelated quality of life in Chinese patients. Angle
Orthod. 2010; 80(1):49-53.
24. Feu D, Oliveira BH, Oliveira Almeida MA, Kiyak HA, Miguel JA. Oral health-related quality of life and orthodontic treatment seeking. Am. J.
Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(2):152-9.
25. Mugonzibwa EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van’t Hof MA, Kikwilu EN. Perceptions of dental attractiveness and orthodontic treatment need
among Tanzanian children. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125(4):426-34.
26. Kerosuo H, Hausen H, Laine T, Shaw WC. The influence of incisal malocclusion on the social attractiveness of young adults in Finland. Eur. J. Orthod. 1995; 17(6):505-12.
27. Burden DJ, Pine CM. Self-perception of malocclusion among adolescents. Community Dent. Health. 1995; 12(1):89-92. 28. O’Brien K, Macfarlane T, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Birnie D, et al. Earyl treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived improvements in
facial profile. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(5):580-5.
29. O’Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatments. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118(4):371-6.