Abstract The aim of this study was to assess, correlate, and compare users’ perceptions and preference related to maxillary removable retainers. Volunteers were recruited to use four retainer types: conventional wrap-around (CWA), wrap-around with an anterior opening (OWA), “U” wrap-around (UWA), and clear thermoplastic retainer (CT). The main outcomes were the volunteers’ perceptions, evaluated with a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their preferred retainer. The retainers were used for 21 days each (washout intervals of 7 days). Nineteen volunteers (27 ± 4.53 years) were randomly divided into four groups that used the four retainers, but with a different sequence. Perceptions were evaluated immediately after the use of each retainer and the preference at the end of the research. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests with post-hoc Tukey’s test (intergroup comparisons), and Pearson and Spearman analyses (correlations between perceptions) were applied. The WA retainers did not significantly differ among themselves. The CT was rated significantly worse in speech (p ≤ 0.001), discomfort (p < 0.001), and occlusal interference (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ from the others in esthetics. Users preferred significant more the WA retainers in comparison with the CT retainers. The occlusal interference caused by the CT was positively correlated to other perceptions, such as changes in speech and discomfort. WA retainers presented similar preference and perceptions, but were significantly better than the CT. The CT occlusal coverage appeared to be the primary cause of its rejection.

RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO: a análise facial subjetiva é um método diagnóstico que privilegia a avaliação morfológica da face; assim, o principal objetivo do presente trabalho foi comparar os diagnósticos faciais e dentários e investigar a correlação entre eles. MÉTODOS: a amostra consistiu de 151 crianças (7 a 13 anos de idade), sem nenhum tratamento ortodôntico prévio, analisadas por um ortodontista. Foram realizadas fotografias padronizadas extrabucais e intrabucais, para a classificação subjetiva dos Padrões Faciais e das relações dentárias segundo a classificação de Angle. Investigou-se a ocorrência de diferentes tipos de Padrões Faciais, em vistas frontal e de perfil; a relação entre os Padrões Faciais e as relações dentárias de Classe e, também, entre a má oclusão de mordida aberta anterior e o Padrão Face Longa. RESULTADOS: o Padrão Facial I (PF I) esteve presente em 64,24% das crianças; o PF II, em 21,29%; o PF III, em 6,62%; o PF Face Longa, em 5,96% e o PF Face Curta, em 1,99%. Observou-se concordância substancial entre a avaliação do PF na vista frontal e na de perfil, igual a 84% (Kappa = 0,69). Houve concordância entre a avaliação da relação dentária de Classe e do PF em 63% da amostra (Kappa = 0,27). O PF Face Longa não demonstrou maior prevalência da má oclusão de mordida aberta. CONCLUSÃO: os Padrões Faciais I e II foram os mais prevalentes em crianças, enquanto o menos prevalente foi o Padrão Face Curta. Verificou-se concordância significativa entre as análises faciais frontal e de perfil. Existe uma ligeira concordância entre o Padrão Facial e a relação sagital dentária. A mordida aberta anterior não se apresentou mais prevalente em nenhum tipo de Padrão Facial.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Subjective facial analysis is a diagnostic method that provides morphological analysis of the face. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the facial and dental diagnoses and investigate their relationship. METHODS: This sample consisted of 151 children (7 to 13 years old), without previous orthodontic treatment, analyzed by an orthodontist. Standardized extraoral and intraoral photographs were taken for the subjective facial classification according to Facial Pattern classification and occlusal analyses. It has been researched the occurrence of different Facial Patterns, the relationship between Facial Pattern classification in frontal and profile views, the relationship between Facial Patterns and Angle classification, and between anterior open bite and Long Face Pattern. RESULTS: Facial Pattern I was verified in 64.24% of the children, Pattern II in 21.29%, Pattern III in 6.62%, Long Face Pattern in 5.96% and Short Face Pattern in 1.99%. A substantial strength of agreement of approximately 84% between frontal and profile classification of Facial Pattern was observed (Kappa = 0.69). Agreement between the Angle classification and the Facial Pattern was seen in approximately 63% of the cases (Kappa = 0.27). Long Face Pattern did not present more open bite prevalence. CONCLUSION: Facial Patterns I and II were the most prevalent in children and the less prevalent was the Short Face Pattern. A significant concordance was observed between profile and frontal subjective facial analysis. There was slight concordance between the Facial Pattern and the sagittal dental relationships. The anterior open bite (AOB) was not significantly prevalent in any Facial Pattern.