The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 98, No 2, 209-212.
© 1979 American Dental Association
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prahl-Andersen, B
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prahl-Andersen, B
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A.
Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 98, Issue 2, 209-212
Copyright © 1979 by American Dental Association

Journal Article

Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists



B Prahl-Andersen, H Boersma, FP van der Linden, and AW Moore

Line drawings of facial profiles and color photographs of dentitions were evaluated subjectively by 1,150 parents, 72 general practictioners of dentistry, and 54 orthodontists with regard to the normality and abnormality in dentofacial morphology and the need for orthodontic treatment. A significant difference was found between the evaluations of the parents and the professional groups in ten of the 11 facial profiles and in seven of the 11 photographs of dentitions. In general, the parents considered more of the examples acceptable and not requiring orthodontic treatment than did the professional groups. The dentists and orthodontists deviated significantly in their ratings onjy in their judgement of "ugly duckling" example (picture 22, higher abnormal rating by the dentists) and the profile example 10 (higher abnormal rating by orthodontists). number of orthondontists may have associated the conditions in picture 10 with a Class II, Division 2 malocclusion and, as such, scored it abnormal.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
M. Fabre, C. Mossaz, P. Christou, and S. Kiliaridis
Professionals' and laypersons' appreciation of various options for Class III surgical correction
Eur J Orthod, November 9, 2009; (2009) cjp104v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
M. Fabre, C. Mossaz, P. Christou, and S. Kiliaridis
Orthodontists' and laypersons' aesthetic assessment of Class III subjects referred for orthognathic surgery
Eur J Orthod, August 1, 2009; 31(4): 443 - 448.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
N. Hamamci, G. Basaran, and E. Uysal
Dental Aesthetic Index scores and perception of personal dental appearance among Turkish university students
Eur J Orthod, April 1, 2009; 31(2): 168 - 173.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
A. M. Hamdan, I. K. Al-Omari, and Z. B. Al-Bitar
Ranking dental aesthetics and thresholds of treatment need: a comparison between patients, parents, and dentists
Eur J Orthod, August 1, 2007; 29(4): 366 - 371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Josefsson, K. Bjerklin, and R. Lindsten
Malocclusion frequency in Swedish and immigrant adolescents--influence of origin on orthodontic treatment need
Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2007; 29(1): 79 - 87.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Bernabe and C. Flores-Mir
Estimating arch length discrepancy through Little's Irregularity Index for epidemiological use
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2006; 28(3): 269 - 273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-1979 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.