No abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

The conventional pathway resulted in a smaller marginal discrepancy for single-implant frameworks. In contrast, the digital pathway resulted in a smaller marginal discrepancy for full-arch implant frameworks.

No abstract

Changes in occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) and age have been found to affect Smile Index (SI, width/height of smile). Limited information is available regarding the aesthetic effects of these changes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the attractiveness of digitally manipulated smile images with differences in SI and incisal edge position (IEP) judged by respondents in different age groups. A total of 12 smile images were generated with varying SI (3·5, 5·3, 7·2, 9·0) and IEP (High, Medium, Low). Fifty respondents each in four age groups (15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55+) evaluated the attractiveness of the 12 images using a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS, 10 being most attractive). A repeated-measures three-factorial mixed model assessed differences. SI, IEP and age of respondents were found to significantly influence attractiveness score (P < 0·01 for all). With all age groups combined, SI = 7·2/IEP = Medium was most attractive (VAS = 7·22), followed by SI = 9·0/IEP = Medium, and SI = 5·3/IEP = Medium (VAS = 6·53 and 6·48, respectively). SI = 3·5/IEP = High and SI = 3·5/IEP = Low were least attractive (VAS = 1·99 and VAS = 2·58, respectively). Age group significantly influenced aesthetic perception, with younger respondents more critical in differences in SI and IEP. SI and IEP significantly influenced attractiveness of the smile in all respondent age groups. Low SI (i.e. 3·5) combined with high or low IEP was unattractive. Medium SI to high SI (i.e. 5·3-9·0) combined with medium IEP were considered attractive.