BackgroundOral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) research among children and adolescents in Lithuania is just starting and no measures have been validated to date. Therefore, this study aimed to validate a Lithuanian version of the full (37 items) Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11–14) within a random sample of children aged 11 to 14.MethodsA cross-sectional survey among a randomly selected sample of schoolchildren (N = 307) aged 11 to14 was conducted. An anonymous questionnaire included the full CPQ11–14 and items on global life satisfaction, oral health and oral life quality self-rating. The questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian using translation guidelines. In addition, an item on the oral pain was modified identifying the pain location. Standard tests (Cronbach’s α, construct validity and discriminant validity), supplemented with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, were employed for psychometric evaluation of the instrument. The questionnaire was also tested by comparison students’ and their parents’ (N = 255) responses about oral symptoms and functional limitations.ResultsThe modified Lithuanian version of CPQ11–14 revealed good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.88). The measure showed significant associations with perceived oral health status and oral well-being, as well as with global life satisfaction (p < 0.01). Discriminant validity of the instrument was approved by comparison of children’s groups defined by self-reported caries experience and malocclusion. Factor analysis revealed a complex structure with two or three factors in each of four domains of the CPQ11–14. Excellent or acceptable levels of indices of model fitting with the given data were obtained for oral symptoms, functional limitations and emotional well-being domains, but not for the social well-being domain. A significant association between child and parental responses was found (intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.56 and 0.43, correspondingly in domains of oral symptoms and functional limitations).ConclusionThe Lithuanian version of the CPQ11–14 (with a modified item that identifies location of oral pain) appears to be a valid instrument to be used in further studies for measuring OHRQoL among 11 to 14 year old children in Lithuania.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0701-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The most frequent (50%) risk factor for IAN injury was intraoperative bleeding during bone preparation. The most common (56.3%) etiological risk factor of nerve injury was dental implant. A six-step protocol aimed at managing patients with IAN injury, during dental implant surgery, was a useful tool that could provide successful treatment outcome.

The shape and sagittal position of the mandible is under stronger genetic control, than is its size and vertical relationship to cranial base.

This report provides general guidelines for the structure of a curriculum, followed by specific advice on the principles of learning and teaching, the process of restructuring and change leadership and management. It provides examples of several educational philosophies, including vertical and horizontal integration. It discusses the use of competence, learning outcomes, level of degree and assessment and provides a number of recommendations. It does not seek to be prescriptive of time allocation to disciplines within a curriculum. Although this report has been written primarily for those who will develop an undergraduate curriculum, the information may be sufficiently generic to apply to the recent development in graduate entry (‘shortened dental’ or ‘accelerated’) courses and to postgraduate degree planning and higher education certificate or diploma courses for other dental care professionals (auxiliaries). The report may have a European bias as progress is made to converge and enhance educational standards in 29 countries with different educational approaches – a microcosm of global collaboration.

The epidemiological data on the prevalence of malocclusion is an important determinant in planning appropriate levels of orthodontic services. The occurrence of occlusal anomalies varies between different countries, ethnic and age groups. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of malocclusion among Lithuanian schoolchildren in the 7-9-, 10-12-, and 13-15-year age groups assessing occlusal morphology. The study included 1681 schoolchildren aged 7-15 years. The crowding, spacing, overbite, overjet, the relationship of the first upper and lower molars according Angle's classification, and posterior crossbite were assessed. The study demonstrated that only 257 children had normal occlusion, and 44 had undergone orthodontic treatment among them. The greatest overjet in the studied contingent was 11 mm, and the negative overjet -3 mm. The overbite ranged between 0 and 6 mm with a mean of 2.29±1.23 mm. Posterior crossbite was recorded in 148 children (8.8%).This study showed that the prevalence of malocclusion among 7-15-year-old Lithuanian schoolchildren is 84.6%. The most common malocclusion was dental crowding. The upper dental arch crowding was registered for 44.1% and lower for 40.3% of all schoolchildren. The class I molar relationship was detected in 68.4% of the subjects, class II -in 27.7%, and class III -in 2.8%.Correspondence to K.

BackgroundAn aesthetic smile has a number of components, and people generally equate a good dental appearance with success in many areas of life. The features that determine smile aesthetics could provide significant insights into post-treatment satisfaction and may predict a patient’s objectives when undergoing treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how smile characteristics are perceived by dental students.MethodsThe study was performed in 431 local and international dental students at the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. The study data were collected using a three-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire included sociodemographic items, i.e., student gender, age, nationality, and years of study; the second consisted of questions about facial aesthetic features; and the third elicited responses to photographs of 17 different smiles retrieved from the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Clinic of Orthodontics database. The smile aesthetics were evaluated according to their dentolabial, dentogingival, dental, and dental arch characteristics using a 5-point numeric rating scale (1, best; 5, worst). The data were analysed using the Pearson’s chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsThe study included 336 local and 95 international dental students (132 men [30.6%], 299 women [69.4%]). Significantly more women than men focused on a person’s teeth when communicating (41.5% vs.32.6%, p < 0.005). Women were more critical than men when evaluating gingival smile, the ‘golden proportion’, occlusal cant, and dental crowding. The most unfavourable smile characteristics were identified in the dental analysis category, with hypodontia ranked as the worst smile feature (mean numeric rating scale score 4.71).ConclusionAmong dental students, the most distracting characteristics of a smile when determining its attractiveness were hypodontia, gingival smile, a reversed curvature of the occlusal plane, and dental crowding.

:  This document was written by Task Force 3 of DentEd III, which is a European Union funded Thematic Network working under the auspices of the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE). It provides a guide to assist in the harmonisation of Dental Education Quality Assurance (QA) systems across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). There is reference to the work, thus far, of DentEd, DentEd Evolves, DentEd III and the ADEE as they strive to assist the convergence of standards in dental education; obviously QA and benchmarking has an important part to play in the European HE response to the Bologna Process. Definitions of Quality, Quality Assurance, Quality Management and Quality Improvement are given and put into the context of dental education. The possible process and framework for Quality Assurance are outlined and some basic guidelines/recommendations suggested. It is recognised that Quality Assurance in Dental Schools has to co‐exist as part of established Quality Assurance systems within faculties and universities, and that Schools also may have to comply with existing local or national systems. Perhaps of greatest importance are the 14 ‘requirements’ for the Quality Assurance of Dental Education in Europe. These, together with the document and its appendices, were unanimously supported by the ADEE at its General Assembly in 2006. As there must be more than one road to achieve a convergence or harmonisation standard, a number of appendices are made available on the ADEE website. These provide a series of ‘toolkits’ from which schools can ‘pick and choose’ to assist them in developing QA systems appropriate to their own environment. Validated contributions and examples continue to be most welcome from all members of the European dental community for inclusion at this website. It is realised that not all schools will be able to achieve all of these requirements immediately, by definition, successful harmonisation is a process that will take time. At the end of the DentEd III project, ADEE will continue to support the progress of all schools in Europe towards these aims.

BackgroundThe objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental retainers.MethodsOne hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines.ResultsThe overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed retainer was the retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice (p < 0.05).ConclusionsA combination of fixed and removable retainers was the most often used in an orthodontic retention. Evidence-based guidelines are desired for a common retention protocol.