Assessment of Aesthetic Smile Components in Patients With Skeletal Class II Vertical and Horizontal Growth Patterns Compared to Class I Cases.

Introduction In orthodontics, having a beautiful smile is very important. It is frequently the main driving force behind people's efforts to enhance their oral health and professional opportunities. Orthodontic and dental treatment planning might benefit greatly when evaluating the aesthetic components of a patient's smile in individuals with varying skeletal growth patterns. In order to help orthodontists achieve the best possible functional and aesthetic results for their patients, the eight elements of a balanced smile are essential to orthodontic therapy. This study aims to evaluate, in comparison to Skeletal Class I Average instances, eight balanced smile components in patients with Skeletal Class II Vertical and Horizontal growth patterns. Methodology A total of 45 patients aged 14-30 were selected from the Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Out-Patient Department (OPD). They were divided into three groups: Skeletal Class I Average, Skeletal Class II Vertical, and Skeletal Class II Horizontal cases based on their malocclusion type. Patients were made to smile in response to a joke or social conversation and their photos were analyzed using Photopea software (Photopea Inc., Prague, Czech Republic) to determine the eight components of a balanced smile. Result Three skeletal classes' worth of smile components were examined in this study. Lip line measurements varied greatly; the highest mean measurement was found in the Skeletal Class II Vertical group (p-value < 0.01). There were no noteworthy correlations found between smile arc and upper lip curvature. Measurements of lateral negative space did not show any significant group differences. On the other hand, a significant correlation was seen in smile symmetry, where asymmetrical smiles were more prevalent in Skeletal Classes I and II Vertical groups (p-value is 0.00072). While arch symmetry suggested a potential relationship between the groups, dental midline alignment revealed possible associations. Conclusion Assessing the aesthetic components of smiles in patients with varying skeletal growth patterns, i.e., contrasting Class II Vertical and Horizontal growth patterns with Class I Average cases, provides valuable information about the connection between smile aesthetics and facial skeletal structure. The results suggest that when compared to Class I typical instances, Skeletal Class II Vertical and Horizontal growth patterns may show clear variations in certain aspects of an attractive smile. Comprehending these variations is essential for devising treatment strategies for patients, and additional investigation is needed. In order to obtain optimal aesthetic outcomes, treatment strategies should strive to optimize smile aesthetics while addressing personalized treatment plans that take into account the patient's unique facial features, smiling preferences, and functional requirements.