BackgroundIn contemporary dental care, an increasing number of adult patients are now seeking orthodontic treatment with the primary motive of improvement in appearance and achievement of esthetic smile. Proper recognition of the dental and facial defects at the outset of treatment is the most important key to esthetic success and is essential in satisfying the patient’s needs. By following the rules of Golden proportion smiles can be made attractive, harmonious, symmetrical, and proportionate.MethodologyConsisted of 22-year-old girl who came for treatment of crowding in maxillary and mandibular arches, abnormal overjet and overbite and had unesthetic peg lateral.ResultsNon-extraction therapy was carried out since the patient had good soft tissue drape, alignment was achieved by expanding the arches and moving teeth in ideal axial inclination. Esthetic smile was attained using composite buildup of upper right peg lateral and minor adjunctive surgery (full thickness periodontal graft) on lower right central incisor.ConclusionThe present case report orchestrates interrelationship between various branches of dentistry and orthodontics. It exhibits how multidisciplinary approach can be used to achieve ideal dental esthetics in a 22-year-old girl who was successfully treated for peg shaped lateral incisor, gingival recession, and unesthetic smile.

Aim: The aim was to study and compare lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and mandibular symphysis morphology of patients with Class II and Class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Lower incisor inclination (incisor mandibular plane angle [IMPA]), as well as buccal (LA) and lingual (LP) cortex depth, and mandibular symphysis height (LH) were measured in 60 lateral cephalometric X-rays of adult patients without prior orthodontic treatment. The subjects were divided into three groups based on antero-posterior skeletal malocclusions-Class I (control group), Class II and Class III groups. Results: IMPA and symphysis dimensions showed significant differences between the sagittal malocclusion groups. In Class III subjects, the lower incisor apex was closer to the buccal cortex, therefore, value of LA was decreased and LH was increased. In Class II subjects, the lower incisor apex was near to the lingual cortex, there value of LP was reduced and LH increased. Conclusion: Narrow alveolus was observed in Class II and III subjects compared to the Class I subjects. Natural compensation elongates the symphysis and influences the lower incisor position. Thus limiting the pre-surgical decompensation and increasing the risk of damage to periodontal tissues.

Objective: To determine if text messaging reminders regarding intra oral elastic wear have any influence on the level of compliance in an orthodontic population.

No abstract

Objectives:(1) To evaluate the influence of the amount of gingival display on smile esthetics and to compare the esthetic perception of six levels of gingival exposure (−3, −1, 0, +1, +3, +5 mm) between orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, dental students, and laypersons. (2) To evaluate the most acceptable level of gingival display during smile. Materials and Methods: Twelve adult females (20-30 years of age) were included in the study. A frontal intraoral and a frontal extraoral smile photograph were obtained from each of them. A total of six images were created with different levels of gingival display. Each image was evaluated for its attractiveness by 60 observers. Results: Analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey's correction was the statistics used. The average ratings for gingival display of −3 and +3 mm did not differ across all the observers. Dental students and laypersons gave significantly higher ratings for −1 mm and 0 mm and significantly lesser ratings for +1 mm and +5 mm, when compared to the orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons. Conclusions: The smile with 0 mm gingival display was considered to be the most esthetic by all observers. Smile with +1 mm gingival display was the second most attractive smile according to the orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons while for the dental students and laypersons, it was the smile with −1 mm gingival display.