Smile esthetic: comparison of perception amongst orthodontists, dental students, orthodontic patients and surgical orthodontic patients

Most patients require orthodontic treatment to improve the esthetics of their smile. Orthodontists must consider how some parameters of mini-esthetics can influence the patient's esthetic perception. Methods: A photograph of the smile of a young female was taken and some modifications were made to the buccal corridor, gingival exposure, smile arc and midline position to assess the influence of these variables on smile attractiveness. Two hundred examiners were selected from four groups: orthodontists (O), dental students (DS), orthodontic patients (OP) and surgical-orthodontic patients (SOP). Each examiner was asked to complete the questionnaire with an approval rating from 1 to 10. Significant level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: Only orthodontists considered buccal corridors of 4mm and midline deviation of 1mm as non-esthetic; all other examiners considered gingival exposures ≥3 mm and midline angulation as non-esthetic. All examiners assigned higher satisfaction values to the photo with the concordant smile arc and defined as non-esthetic the covered smile and the reverse smile arc. Patients perceived as non-esthetic only midline deviations of 4mm. The surgical orthodontic patients assigned lower values to the photos and showed greater attention to evaluating the esthetics of the smile than the orthodontic patients. Conclusion: Smile arc, gingival exposure and midline angulation influence smile esthetics; the role of buccal corridors and midline deviation is dependent on the type of examiner

Split crest technique for implant treatment of agenesis of the upper lateral incisors: results of a randomized pilot histological and clinical study at 24-month follow-up

Abstract Agenesis of lateral incisors, besides the functional issues, represents a great esthetic drawback. The selection of an appropriate treatment is a complex decision, which should consider the stability of the clinical outcomes over time. The aim of the present study was a histological and clinical comparison of two-stage split crest technique (SCT), with bone chips alone or mixed with porcine bone in patients affected by unilateral and bilateral agenesis of the upper lateral incisors. Eleven patients were enrolled, and randomly assigned to receive a treatment with autologous bone chips (group 1) or autologous bone chips mixed 1:1 to porcine-derived xenogenic bone (group 2). After a 2-month healing period, implants were placed and biopsies harvested for histomorphometrical evaluation. Clinical assessment, according to ICOI PISA health scale, and radiographic marginal bone loss evaluation at 12- and 24-month follow-ups were conducted. The histomorphometry showed significantly greater new bone formation (p > 0.0229) in group 2. At 12- and 24-month follow-ups, all the evaluated implants, regardless of the group they were allocated, could be categorized as "success" in the ICOI Pisa Health Scale for Dental Implants, and did not show significant difference in crestal bone loss. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first histological and clinical outcomes indicating that the use of bone chips mixed 1:1 to porcine bone in SCT could be a promising technique for the rehabilitation of patients with agenesis of the upper lateral incisors, although studies with a larger number of patients and implants, and a longer follow up are needed.