Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Statement Of Problem: Multidisciplinary treatment needs a common goal, and dentists should understand the esthetic perception of laypeople and the other specialists involved. Such information is sparse.
Purpose: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare the influence of gingival display on perceived smile esthetics among restorative dentists, orthodontists, prosthodontists, periodontists, and laypeople.
Material And Methods: Photographs of the smiles of 2 volunteers (1 female and 1 male) were manipulated on a computer to produce gingival exposure of 1, 3, and 5 mm and central incisor coverage of 3 and 5 mm. The images were evaluated by using a 100-mm visual analog scale by 155 raters divided into 5 groups (restorative dentists, orthodontists, prosthodontists, periodontists, and laypeople).
Results: The dental specialists, mainly orthodontists and periodontists, were more sensitive about alterations in gingival display than the laypeople. For the female smile, higher mean scores were attributed to 1 mm of gingival exposure by all groups of raters. For the male smile, 3 mm of central incisor coverage received higher mean scores, except for the laypeople, who considered gingival display of 1 mm to be more attractive. For both smiles, 5 mm of gingival display was judged to be the least attractive.
Conclusions: Considering the differences in opinion between dental specialists and laypeople and the acceptable variations in gingival display, the preferences of patients should be considered in the diagnosis and treatment decision-making process.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.023 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!