ABSTRAK

Pendahuluan: Estetika wajah menjadi perhatian dalam perawatan ortodonti karena berhubungan langsung dengan penampilan. Pasien maloklusi kelas II divisi 1 mempunyai wajah cembung dan sering kali mengganggu estetik wajah. Tujuan penelitian mengetahui perbedaan fotometri frontal metode Proffit dan fotometri profil metode Steiner pasien maloklusi skeletal kelas II divisi 1 sebelum dan setelah perawatan ortodonti kompromi. Metode: Penelitian bersifat deskriptif analitis komparatif. Populasi sampel ditentukan secara purposive sampling terhadap pasien perawatan ortodonti kompromi maloklusi kelas II divisi 1 yang dirawat di klinik PPDGS Ortodonti RSGM Unpad tahun 2016-2021, sejumlah 11 pasien. Uji t-test berpasangan digunakan untuk menganalisis perbedaan fotometri frontal metode Proffit dan fotometri profil metode Steiner pasien maloklusi skeletal kelas II divisi 1 sebelum dan setelah perawatan ortodonti kompromi. (p – value < 0,05). Hasil: Terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan pada tinggi wajah sepertiga bagian bawah (p-value 0,0023 < 0,05) dan posisi bibir atas terhadap S-line (p-value 0,0014 < 0,05). Tidak terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan pada tinggi wajah sepertiga bagian atas, proporsi wajah dari helixsrt – exochantion (exrt), proporsi wajah dari exochantion (exrt) – endochantion (enrt), proporsi wajah dari endochantion (enrt) – endochantion (enlt), proporsi wajah dari endochantion (enlt) – exochantion (exlt), proporsi wajah dari exochantion (exlt) – helixslt, posisi bibir bawah terhadap S-line (p-value > 0,05). Simpulan: Perawatan ortodonti kompromi maloklusi kelas II divisi I dengan pencabutan dua premolar rahang atas menghasilkan perubahan profil jaringan lunak pada sepertiga wajah bagian bawah dan posisi bibir bawah terhadap S-line, berdasarkan analisis fotometri frontal metode Proffit dan fotometri profil metode Steiner.

KATA KUNCI: maloklusi skeletal kelas II divisi 1, perawatan kompromi, analisis Proffit, dan Steiner.

Differences of frontal photometries and face profiles of patients before and after other ontic Treatment of compromise skeletal malocclusion class ii division 1 (Using Profit and Steiner Analysis): Study descriptive

ABSTRACT

 Introduction: Facial aesthetics is a concern in orthodontic treatment because it is directly related to appearance. Class II division 1 malocclusion patients have convex faces and often have facial disfigurement. Objective to determine the difference between Proffit method frontal photometry and Steiner method profile photometry in patients with class II division 1 skeletal malocclusion before and after compromised orthodontic treatment. Methods: The research is descriptive comparative analytical in nature. The sample population was determined by purposive sampling of patients with orthodontic treatment for compromised class II division 1 malocclusion who were treated at the PPDGS Orthodontic clinic at RSGM Unpad in 2016-2021. The paired t-test was used to analyze the differences between Proffit method frontal photometry and Steiner method profile photometry in patients with class II division 1 skeletal malocclusion before and after compromised orthodontic treatment. (p – value < 0.05). Results: There were significant differences in the height of the lower third of the face (p-value 0.0023 < 0.05), the position of the upper lip towards the S-line (p-value 0.0014 < 0.05). There were no significant results in the upper third of facial height, facial proportions from helixsrt – exochantion (exrt), facial proportions from exochantion (exrt) – endochantion (enrt), facial proportions from endochantion (enrt) - endochantion (enlt), proportions face from endochantion (enlt) – exochantion (exlt), facial proportions from exochantion (exlt) – helixslt, position of the lower lip relative to the S-line (p-value > 0.05). Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment of compromised class II division I malocclusion by removing two maxillary premolars resulted in changes in the soft tissue profile in the lower third of the face and the position of the lower lip relative to the S-line

 Key words: skeletal malocclusion class II division 1, compromised treatment, Proffit, and Steiner analysis

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Fabbri G, Cannistraro G, Pulcini C, Sorrentino R. The full-mouth mock-up: a dynamic diagnostic approach (DDA) to test function and esthetics in complex rehabilitations with increased vertical dimension of occlusion. Int J Esthet Dent. 2018; 3(4): 460-74.

Traser L, Birkholz P, Flügge TV, Kamberger R, Burdumy M, Richter B, Korvink JG, Echternach M. Relevance of the Implementation of Teeth in Three-Dimensional Vocal Tract Models. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60(9): 2379-93. DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0395.

Malkoc S, Fidancioglu A. The Role of Ideal Angles, Ratios, and Divine Proportions in Aesthetic Evaluation of Adolescents. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-015-0581-x.

laudino D, Traebert J. Malocclusion, dental aesthetic self-perception and quality of life in a 18 to 21 year-old population: a cross section study. BMC Oral Health. 2013 Jan 7;13:3. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-13-3.

Afroz S, Rathi S, Rajput G, Rahman SA. Dental esthetics and its impact on psycho-social well-being and dental self confidence: a campus based survey of north Indian university students. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(4):455-60. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0247-1.

Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U. The impact of malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need on the quality of life. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2019;79(3):585-91. DOI: 10.2319/042108-224.1.

Zhang M, McGrath C, Hägg U. The impact of malocclusion and its treatment on quality of life: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016;16(6):381-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00768.x.

Phillips C, Beal KN. Self-concept and the perception of facial appearance in children and adolescents seeking orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2019;79(1):12-6. DOI: 10.2319/071307-328.1.

Malkoç S, Demir A, Uysal T, Canbuldu N. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod. 2019;31(2):174-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn082.

Rischen RJ, Breuning KH, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Records needed for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a systematic review. PLoS One.2013;8(11):e74186. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074186.

D'Onofrio L. Oral dysfunction as a cause of malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):43-48. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12277.

Maspero C, Galbiati G, Giannini L, Guenza G, Farronato M. Class II division 1 malocclusions: comparisons between one- and two-step treatment. Eur J Paediatr Dent.2018;19(4):295-299. DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.04.8.

Ardiansyah MS, Pudyani PS, Suparwitri S. Perubahan Profil Wajah Sesudah Perawatan Ortodontik Cekat Insisiva Den J. 2018;7(1):22-6. DOI: 10.18196/di.7192

Naragond A, Kenganal S, Sagarkar R, Sugaradday. Orthodontic Camouflage Treatment in an Adult Patient with a Class II, Division 1 Malocclusion - A Case Report. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(2):395-400. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5191.2780.

Fernández-Riveiro P, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Eur J Orthod. 2013;25(4):393-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/25.4.393.

Agustina D, Suparwitri S. Perawatan Kamuflase Maloklusi Klas III Dentoskeletal Menggunakan Teknik Begg Pada Pasien Dewasa. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Klinik. 2015; 1(2): 116-21. DOI: 10.22146/mkgk.11979

Setyowati P. Perawatan Maloklusi Kelas III Dengan Hubungan Skeletal Kelas III Disertai Makroglosia Menggunakan Alat Ortodontik Cekat Teknik Begg. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi. 2013; 20(2): 184-91 DOI: 10.22146/majkedgiind.7963

Martins LF, Vigorito JW. Photometric analysis applied in determining facial type. Dental Press J Orthodontics.2012; 17(5): 71-5.

Freitas BV, Rodrigues VP, Rodrigues MF, de Melo HVF, Dos Santos PCF. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with or without tooth extractions in Class I malocclusion patients: A comparative study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019; 9(2): 172-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.07.003.

Kaya KS, TürkB, Cankaya M, Seyhun N, Coşkun BU. Assessment of facial analysis measurements by golden proportion. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 85(4): 494-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.07.009.

Fortes HNR, Guimarães TC, Belo IML, Matta ENR. Photometric analysis of esthetically pleasant and unpleasant facial profile. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014; 19(2): 66-75. DOI: 10.1590/21769451.19.2.066-075.oar.

Singh, G. Textbook of orthodontics. 3th. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. 2015. p. 734

de Carvalho Rosas Gomes L, Horta KO, Gandini LG Jr, Gonçalves M, Gonçalves JR. Photographic assessment of cephalometric measurements. Angle Orthod.2013;83(6):1049-58. DOI: 10.2319/120712-925.1

Konstantonis D, Vasileiou D, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018; 126(3): 167-79. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12409.

Janson G, Junqueira CH, Mendes LM, Garib DG. Influence of premolar extractions on long-term adult facial aesthetics and apparent age. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38(3): 272-80. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv039.

Oliveira MVD. Skeletal and dental Class II malocclusion, with anterior open bite and accentuated overjet. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2012; 17(2), 162-169. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512012000200027

Milutinović J, Nedeljković N. En-face parameters change after orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion. Stomatološki glasnik Srbije. 2016; 63(4): 167-75. DOI: 10.1515/sdj-2016-0017

Bragatto FP, Chicarelli M, Kasuya AVB, Takeshita WM, Iwaki-Filho L, Iwaki LCV. Golden Proportion Analysis of Dental–Skeletal Patterns of Class II and III Patients Pre and Post Orthodontic-orthognathic Treatment. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 Sep;17(9): 728-33. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1920.

Kirschneck C, Proff P, Reicheneder C, Lippold C. Short-term effects of systematic premolar extraction on lip profile, vertical dimension and cephalometric parameters in borderline patients for extraction therapy--a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(4):865-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1574-5.

Iared W, Koga da Silva EM, Iared W, Rufino Macedo C. Esthetic perception of changes in facial profile resulting from orthodontic treatment with extraction of premolars: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148(1): 9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.09.004

Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:13. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0125-1.