Effects of malocclusion on the self-esteem of female university students

Min-Ho Jung; Wook Heo; Seung-Hak Baek

doi:10.4041/kjod.2008.38.6.388

Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.38(6) > 1043567

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Effects of malocclusion on the self-esteem of female university students

Original Article

Korean J Orthod 2008;38(6):388-396.

Published online: 19 January 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2008.38.6.388

Effects of malocclusion on the self-esteem of female university students

Min-Ho Jung, DDS, MSD, PhD^a, Wook Heo, DDS, MSD^b, Seung-Hak Baek, DDS, MSD, PhD^c

^aPrivate practice, Clinical Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital

^bPrivate practice, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University.

^cAssociate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University.

Corresponding author: Seung-Hak Baek. Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, 28, Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-768, Korea. +82 2 2072 3952; e-mail, drwhite@unitel.co.kr.

Received 18 August 2008 Revised 24 October 2008 Accepted 28 October 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of malocclusion on the self-esteem of female university students.

Methods:

The subjects were composed of 67 female university students who showed Class I molar relation, no missing or supernumerary teeth and has had no orthodontic treatment experience. Each subject was evaluated with Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale to measure the level of self-esteem and also evaluated the degree of anterior crowding and lip protrusion through model analysis and cephalometric soft tissue profile analysis.

Results:

The results showed that a protrusive profile and crowding of upper anterior teeth had significant reducing effects on the level of self-esteem. The protrusion and crowding groups showed no significant differences in self-esteem between groups.

Conclusions:

Malocclusion had significant negative effects on the self-esteem of female university students. Further research to investigate the negative psychological influence of malocclusion and the education of lay people about this influence is necessary.

Keywords: Self-esteem, Malocclusion, Protrusive profile, Crowding

REFERENCES

1.Centofante DM., Brittin ME., Williams BH. Anterior malocclusion and soft tissue profile related to sound production and self-concept. Angle Orthod. 1982. 52:313–24.

2.Jung MH. Effects of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on the self-esteem of adolescents. Korean J Orthod. 2007. 37:56–64.

3.Shaw WC., Meek SC., Jones DS. Nicknames, teasing, harassment and the salience of dental features among school children. Br J Orthod. 1980. 7:75–80.

4.Lagerström L., Stenvik A., Espeland L., Hallgren A. Outcome of a scheme for orthodontic care: a comparison of untreated and treated 19-year-olds. Swed Dent J. 2000. 24:49–57.

5.Thompson LA., Malmberg J., Goodell N., Boring RL. The distribution of attention across a talker's face. Discourse Process. 2004. 38:145–68.

6.Arndt EM., Travis F., Lefebvre A., Niec A., Munro IR. Beauty and the eye of the beholder: social consequences and personal adjustment for facial patients. Br J Plast Surg. 1986. 39:81–4.

7.Klages U., Bruckner A., Guld Y., Zentner A. Dental esthetics, orthodontic treatment, and oral-health attitudes in young adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 128:442–9.

8.Van der Geld P., Oosterveld P., Van Heck G., Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod. 2007. 77:759–65.

9.An JY., An K., O'Connor L., Wexler S. Life satisfaction, self-esteem, and perceived health status among elder Korean women: focus on living arrangements. J Transcult Nurs. 2008. 19:151–60.

10.Brody GH., Kogan SM., Murry VM., Chen YF., Brown AC. Psychological functioning, support for self-management, and glycemic control among rural African American adults with diabetes mellitus type 2. Health Psychol. 2008. 27(Suppl 1):83S–90S.

11.Ogden J., Lindridge L. The impact of breast scarring on perceptions of attractiveness: an experimental study. J Health Psychol. 2008. 13:303–10.

12.Crystal DS., Watanabe H., Weinfurt K., Wu C. Concepts of human differences: a comparison of American, Japanese and Chinese children and adolescents. Dev Psychol. 1998. 34:714–22.

13.Reichmuth M., Greene KA., Orsini MG., Cisneros GJ., King GJ., Kiyak HA. Occlusal perceptions of children seeking orthodontic treatment: impact of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 128:575–82.

14.Brown KM., McMahon RP., Biro FM., Crawford P., Schreiber GB., Similo SL, et al. Changes in self-esteem in black and white girls between the ages of 9 and 14 years. The NHLBI Growth and Health Study. J Adolesc Health. 1998. 23:7–19.

15.Shaw WC., Richmond S., Kenealy PM., Kingdon A., Worthington H. A 20-year cohort study of health gain from orthodontic treatment: psychological outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007. 132:146–57.

16.Kerosuo H., Al Enezi S., Kerosuo E., Abdulkarim E. Association between normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment need among Arab high school students. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 125:373–8.

17.Tulloch JF., Shaw WC., Underhill C., Smith A., Jones G., Jones M. A comparison of attitudes toward orthodontic treatment in British and American communities. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:253–9.

18.Mandall NA., Wright J., Conboy FM., O'Brien KD. The relationship between normative orthodontic treatment need and measures of consumer perception. Community Dent Health. 2001. 18:3–6.

19.Arnett GW., Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993. 103:299–312.

20.Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975. 68:554–63.

21.Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press;1989.

22.Seo YK. Relationships between adolescents' appearance satisfaction and self-esteem and academic achievement [thesis]. Seoul: Sookmyung Women's Univ;2003.

23.Park HK. Self-serving bias in the evaluation of personal change over time [thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National Univ;2002.

24.Garcia SD. Appearance anxiety, health practices, meta-perspectives and self-perception of physical attractiveness. J Soc Behav Personal. 1998. 13:307–18.

25.Dion K., Berscheid E., Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972. 24:285–90.

26.Langlois J., Kalakanis L., Rubenstein A., Larson A., Hallam M., Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000. 126:390–423.

27.Feingold A. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull. 1992. 111:304–41.

28.Adams GR. Physical attractiveness research. Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Hum Dev. 1977. 20:217–39.

29.Clifford MM., Walster E. The effects of physical attractiveness on teacher expectation. Sociol Educ. 1973. 46:248–58.

30.Adams GR., La Voie JC. The effects of student's sex, conduct, and facial attractiveness on teacher expectancy. Educ. 1974. 95:76–83.

31.Landy D., Sigall H. Beauty is talent: task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. J Personality Soc Psychol. 1974. 29:299–304.

32.Kiyak HA., Hohl T., Sherrick P., West RA., McNeil RW., Bucher F. Sex differences in motives for and outcomes of orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1981. 39:757–64.

33.Holmes A. The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1992. 19:287–97.

34.Muijs RD. Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept; a longitudinal perspective. Br J Educ Psychol. 1997. 67:263–77.

35.Korean association of orthodontics malocclusion white paper publication committee. Cephalometric analysis of normal occlusion in Korean adults. Korean Association of Orthodontists:. 1997.

36.Jung MH., Yang WS. Causative factors and predictability of arch length discrepancy. Korean J Orthod. 1997. 27:457–71.

37.Kelly JE., Harvey CR. An assessment of the occlusion of the teeth of youths 12-17 years. Vital Health Stat 11. 1977. 162:1–65.

38.Helm S., Kreiborg S., Solow B. Psychosocial implications of malocclusion: a 15-year follow-up study in 30-year-old Danes. Am J Orthod. 1985. 87:110–8.

Fig 1.

Cephalometric measurements. 1, Saddle angle; 2, articular angle; 3, gonial angle; 4, Bjork sum (1+2+3); 5, upper 1 to SN; 6, upper 1 to FH; 7, upper lip to E line; 8, lower lip to E line; 9, ANB; 10, IMPA; 11, interincisal angle.

Fig 2.

Cephalometric measurements (continued). 1, Lower 1 to A Pog; 2, A to N perpendicular; 3, Pog to N perpendicular; 4, anterior facial height (N to Me); 5, posterior facial height (S to Go); 6, facial height ratio (5/4 x 100); 7, nasolabial angle; 8, AB to mandibular plane.

Fig 3.

Self-esteem scale questionnaire by Rosenberg.²¹

Table 1.

Grouping of the samples by types of malocclusion

Group	N	Definition
1	23	Class I molar relationship, irregularity index (upper arch) ≤ 5 mm, Upper and lower lip protrusion to E line < total 4 mm, No orthodontic treatment experience
2	22	Class I molar relationship, irregularity index (upper arch) ≥ 8 mm, Upper and lower lip protrusion to E line < total 4 mm, No orthodontic treatment experience
3	22	Class I molar relationship, irregularity index (upper arch)≤ 5 mm, Upper and lower lip protrusion to E line > total 4 mm No orthodontic treatment experience

Table 2.

Irregularity index and lip protrusion values of each group (Mean ± Standard deviation)

Group	Irregularity index	Lip protrusion (UL + LL)
1	2.61±1.30	−1.20±3.09
2	10.86±3.21	−0.36±3.40
3	2.96±1.49	6.88±2.21

Table 3.

Mean and standard deviation of the measurements of each group

Measurement	Group			ANOVA
Measurement	1	2	3	ANOVA
Age (yr)	22.60±2.94	21.61±3.09	23.58±3.92	NS
Björk sum	394.37±4.44	397.56±5.72	400.59±6.77	(1,2)(2,3)^∗
Facial Ht ratio	65.99±3.24	64.28±5.19	61.85±4.80	(1,2)(2,3)^∗
ANB	2.31±2.00	4.09±2.18	4.38±1.85	(1)(2,3)^∗
A to N-perp	−0.35±3.63	0.71±3.01	0.47±3.34	NS
Pog to N-perp	−4.68±5.38	−7.74±6.98	−9.97±6.96	(1,2)(2,3)^∗
U1 to FH	114.85±4.81	115.26±8.63	116.06±6.47	NS
U1toSN	106.67±5.42	106.82±8.35	106.89±6.71	NS
L1toA-Pog	4.92±1.80	4.89±2.45	7.70±2.59	(1,2)(3)^∗
IMPA	95.67±6.75	95.17±7.25	97.30±6.46	NS
InterincisalA.	123.37±6.91	120.73±10.17	115.31±7.98	(1,2)(3)^∗
ABtoMP	70.88±6.49	70.93±5.63	68.99±5.59	NS
NasolabialA.	102.42±12.96	96.65±9.88	99.55±12.84	NS

NS, non-significant difference;

^∗ Duncan's multiple comparison (p ＜ 0.05).

Table 4.

Self-esteem index (SI) of each group

Group	N	SI (Mean±SD)	Post hoc^∗	Order
1	23	3.11±0.29	A
2	22	2.86±0.28	B	A>B
3	22	2.75±0.34	B
Total	67	2.91±0.33

^∗ Duncan's multiple comparison (p ＜ 0.05). Same letter means same level (order A＞ B).

TOOLS

Similar articles