Objective: To evaluate the esthetic perception of upper dental midline deviation by laypersons and if adjacent structures influence their judgment. Methods:An album with 12 randomly distributed frontal view photographs of the smile of a woman with the midline digitally deviated was evaluated by 95 laypersons. The frontal view smiling photograph was modified to create from 1 mm to 5 mm deviations in the upper midline to the left side. The photographs were cropped in two different manners and divided into two groups of six photographs each: group LCN included the lips, chin, and two-thirds of the nose, and group L included the lips only. The laypersons performed the rate of each smile using a visual analog scale (VAS). Wilcoxon test, Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney test were applied, adopting a 5% level of significance. Results: Laypersons were able to perceive midline deviations starting at 1 mm. Statistically significant results (p< 0.05) were found for all multiple comparisons of the values in photographs of group LCN and for almost all comparisons in photographs of group L. Comparisons between the photographs of groups LCN and L showed statistically significant values (p< 0.05) when the deviation was 1 mm. Conclusions:Laypersons were able to perceive the upper dental midline deviations of 1 mm, and above when the adjacent structures of the smiles were included. Deviations of 2 mm and above when the lips only were included. The visualization of structures adjacent to the smile demonstrated influence on the perception of midline deviation.

Digital models obtained from CBCT were not accurate for all measures assessed. The differences were clinically acceptable for all dental linear measurements, except for maxillary arch perimeter. Digital models are reproducible for all measurements when intraexaminer assessment is considered and need improvement in interexaminer evaluation.

No abstract

Objective: To assess the color of different orthodontic resin bonding agents exposed to three antiseptic mouthrinses for a prolonged time interval (10-year aging simulation). Methods: 160 specimens were distributed into four groups, according to the orthodontic resin bond agent (Concise, Transbond XT, Transbond Plus Color Change, and Natural Ortho). Each group was exposed to different antiseptic mouthrinses: alcohol-based (Listerine®), alcohol-free (Oral-B®), chlorhexidine (Periogard®) and distilled water as the control. Specimens were submitted to two cycles of staining and artificial aging. Color was evaluated by means of a digital spectrophotometer at the beginning of the experiment and after every cycle. The system used to assess color changes was the CIE L*a*b*. Data was analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test. Results: After simulation of 10 years of aging, Transbond XT and Natural Ortho composites presented no statistically significant differences in ∆E when exposed to different mouthrinses. The Concise composite specimens exposed to alcohol-free mouthrinse presented a significant difference when compared with specimens from the same group exposed to other antiseptic mouthrinses. Transbond Plus Color Change specimens exposed to chlorhexidine mouthrinse and to alcohol-containing mouthrinse presented a significant difference when compared with the specimens from the group exposed to water and alcohol-free antiseptic. Conclusion: All orthodontic resin bonding agents tested presented clinically perceptible color changes when exposed to at least one of the mouthrinses, except for the Natural Ortho composite. The Concise composite exposed to the alcohol-free solution was the resin that presented the highest color change values.

No abstract