The maxillary incisor labial face tangent: clinical evaluation of maxillary incisor inclination in profile smiling view and idealized aesthetics

Background: To test the hypothesis that in profile smiling view, for ideal aesthetics, a tangent to the labial face of the maxillary central incisor crowns should be approximately parallel to the true vertical line and thereby perpendicular to the true horizontal line. Methods: An idealized female image was created with computer software and manipulated using the same software to construct an “ideal” female profile image with proportions, and linear and angular soft tissue measurements, based on currently accepted criteria for idealized Caucasian profiles. The maxillary incisor labial face tangent was altered in 5° increments from 70 to 120°, creating a range of images, shown in random order to 70 observers (56 lay people and 14 clinicians), who ranked the images from the most to the least attractive. The main outcome was the preference ranks of image attractiveness given by the observers. Results: The most attractive inclination of a tangent to the labial face of the maxillary incisor crowns in profile view in relation to the true horizontal line was 85°, i.e. 5° retroclined from a perpendicular 90° inclination. The most attractive range appears to be between 80 and 90°. Excessive proclination appeared to be less desirable than retroclination. Beyond 105° most observers recommend treatment. Conclusion: In natural head position, the ideal inclination of the maxillary incisor crown labial face tangent in profile view will be approximately parallel to the true vertical line and thereby approximately perpendicular to the true horizontal line

What is the value of orthodontic treatment?

Orthodontic treatment is as popular as ever. Orthodontists frequently have long lists of people wanting treatment and the cost to the NHS in England was £258m in 2010-2011 (approximately 10% of the NHS annual spend on dentistry). It is important that clinicians and healthcare commissioners constantly question the contribution of interventions towards improving the health of the population. In this article, the authors outline some of the evidence for and against the claims that people with a malocclusion are at a disadvantage compared with those without a malocclusion and that orthodontic treatment has significant health benefits. The authors would like to point out that this is not a comprehensive and systematic review of the entire scientific literature. Rather the evidence is presented in order to stimulate discussion and debate

Mesiodistal root angulation of permanent teeth in children with mixed dentition and normal occlusion

OBJECTIVE: There is little information regarding the mesiodistal angulation of permanent teeth in mixed dentition. The aim of this study was to evaluate mesiodistal root angulation of permanent incisors, canines and first molars of 100 Brazilian children, using a new horizontal reference plane based on the midpoint of the intercuspation of primary canines and permanent first molars in panoramic radiographs during the mixed-dentition phase. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Children were equally divided between the genders with a mean age of 8.9 years (SD=0.76), normal occlusion and no eruptive disturbances. RESULTS: The angulation of the permanent maxillary first molars was close to the vertical, whereas the mandibular molars presented approximately 25 degrees of distal root angulation. The maxillary canines were the most distally angulated teeth, whereas the permanent mandibular canines were vertically positioned. The evaluation of the anterior maxillary area showed vertical position of permanent lateral, and central incisors with a slight distal angulation, whereas the permanent mandibular incisors tended to a mesial radicular convergence. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed reference line could be useful in mixed dentition root angulation evaluation; there was a slight asymmetry in the mesiodistal angulation among homologous teeth, and also a small variation between the male and the female groups, but no difference between 8-and 10-year-old children