Perception of dental appearance and aesthetic analysis among patients, laypersons and dentists.

BACKGROUND: Current concepts of beauty are increasingly subjective, influenced by the viewpoints of others. The aim of the study was to evaluate divergences in the perception of dental appearance and smile esthetics among patients, laypersons and dental practitioners. The study goals were to evaluate the influence of age, sex, education and dental specialty on the participants' judgment and to identify the values of different esthetic criteria. Patients sample included 50 patients who responded to a dental appearance questionnaire (DAQ). Two frontal photographs were taken, one during a smile and one with retracted lips. Laypersons and dentists were asked to evaluate both photographs using a Linear Scale from (0-10), where 0 represent (absolutely unaesthetic) and 10 represent (absolutely aesthetic). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test analysis were measured for each group. Most patients in the sample expressed satisfaction with most aspects of their smiles and dental appearance. Among laypersons (including 488 participants), 47 pictures "with lips" out of 50 had higher mean aesthetic scores compared to pictures "without lips". Among the dentist sample, 90 dentists' perception towards the esthetic smile and dental appearance for photos "with lips" and "without lips" were the same for 23 out of 50 patients. Perception of smile aesthetics differed between patients, laypersons and dentists. Several factors can contribute to shape the perception of smile aesthetic. AIM: To compare the perception of dental aesthetic among patients, laypersons, and professional dentists, to evaluate the impact of age, sex, educational background, and income on the judgments made by laypersons, to assess the variations in experience, specialty, age, and sex on professional dentists' judgment, and to evaluate the role of lips, skin shade and tooth shade in different participants' judgments. METHODS: Patients sample included 50 patients who responded to DAQ. Two frontal photographs were taken: one during a smile and one with retracted lips. Laypersons and dentists were asked to evaluate both photographs using a Linear Scale from (0-10), where 0 represent (absolutely unaesthetic) and 10 represent (absolutely aesthetic). One-way ANOVA and t-test analysis were measured for each group. RESULTS: Most patients in the sample expressed satisfaction with most aspects of their smiles and dental appearance. Among laypersons (including 488 participants), 47 pictures "with lips" out of 50 had higher mean aesthetic scores compared to pictures "without lips". Whereas among the dentist sample, 90 dentists' perception towards the esthetic smile and dental appearance for photos "with lips" and "without lips" were the same for 23 out of 50 patients. Perception of smile aesthetics differed between patients, laypersons and dentists. CONCLUSION: Several factors can contribute to shape the perception of smile aesthetic.

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light-curing units among dental assistants.

BACKGROUND: Proper light curing is crucial for the success of restorative dentistry and to bond brackets to teeth, yet the responsibility is often delegated to dental assistants (DAs). This study assessed the proficiency and maintenance protocols of DAs when using light-curing units (LCUs) in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to practicing DAs. The questionnaire contained sections on knowledge, adherence to best practices, and how to maintain the LCU. Demographic data were collected as well. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions at a significance level of (p = 0.05) were conducted to identify any relationships that influenced the DAs' LCU knowledge, practice, and maintenance protocols. RESULTS: Among the surveyed DAs, 66% were responsible for using the LCU during treatment, 16% used their fingers for support when light curing, 50% held the LCU tip 1-2 mm from the restoration during curing, and 51% did not have a specific maintenance protocol at their workplace. 70% did not know the output from the LCU, and their educational background correlated with knowledge (b = -14.42, p < 0.001). The type of institution type correlated with adherence to best practices (b = -13.65, p = 0.011), and level of knowledge and adherence to maintenance protocols showed a direct correlation (b = 0.002, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that a significant percentage of the DAs who replied had insufficient knowledge and did not follow the best practices and maintenance protocols for the LCUs they were using. Their educational background and workplace factors influenced this knowledge gap, while the absence of a maintenance protocol and suboptimal practices were associated with the type of institution. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: To maintain the best practice, clinicians and institutions should improve the education and training of DAs. Otherwise, inadequate light curing by the DAs may jeopardize the long-term success of many dental procedures.

Evaluation of Matrix Systems on the Proximal Contact of Class II Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review.

When restoring proximal surfaces in posterior teeth, dentists frequently encounter the difficulty of reproducing the proximal contact that is naturally present in unrestored teeth. In order to guarantee the durability of restorations made from class II composite resin, it is imperative that both functional and aesthetic requirements are met. This entails the choice of the matrix system that replicates the optimal proximal contact subsequent to the insertion of restorations made of class II composite resin. The objective of this systematic review is to assemble current research conducted on the various matrix systems utilized in class II composite restorations and assess their impact on the pre-existing composite proximal contact. Three examiners conducted an independent electronic search utilizing the subsequent databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, and Embase. Publications on proximal contact in class II composite restorations were compiled from the time of their inception until August 2022, in accordance with predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality assessment was conducted utilizing the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) instrument. Among the six studies that were included, it was observed that the sectional matrix system generated greater proximal contact tightness than the circumferential matrix system (Tofflemire). However, no significant distinction was found between the metal and polyester matrix systems. In contrast to alternative circumferential matrix systems, the utilization of a sectional matrix system yields a statistically significant improvement in the optimum proximal contact of class II composite restorations, according to the studies.