The aesthetic impact of enamel fluorosis on Irish adolescents

Browne, Deirdre; Whelton, Helen; O'Mullane, D; Tavener, J A; Flannery, Edel

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00577.x

Cited by 21 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unsurprisingly, the images depicting a tooth with caries or large demarcated opacities were deemed to be the least favoured. This is consistent with previous work related to dental aesthetics [18,19] whereby teeth with mild forms of fluorosis (TF 1, TF2) were rated similarly; and such presentations of mild fluorosis were rated higher than teeth with demarcated opacities, interdental "black triangles" (related to prosthetic treatment) or caries. The remaining images provided an equivocal representation of participant preference.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…One inference from the data is the mildest presentations of fluorosis (TF 1) may not be associated with aesthetic concerns. As fluorosis severity increases (TF 2 or greater), the rating of images (and perhaps the level of acceptance) declines which is in agreement with earlier work [6,16,19-21]. However, it is not possible from the outcome of this study to determine a cut off level of fluorosis severity that is considered to be an aesthetic problem.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adolescents' perceptions of the aesthetic impact of dental fluorosis vs. other dental conditions in areas with and without water fluoridation

McGrady

Ellwood²,

Goodwin

et al. 2012

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of fluorides for caries prevention is well established but is linked with an increased risk of dental fluorosis, some of which may be considered to be aesthetically objectionable. Patient opinion should be considered when determining impact on aesthetics. The aim of this study was to assess participant rating of dental aesthetics (from photographic images) of 11 to 13 year olds participating in an epidemiological caries and fluorosis survey in a fluoridated and a non-fluoridated community in Northern England.MethodsConsented participants were invited to rank in order of preference (appearance) a collage of 10 computer generated images on a touch-screen laptop. The images comprised an assortment of presentations of teeth that included white teeth, a spectrum of developmental defects of enamel and dental caries. Data were captured directly and exported into SPSS for analysis.ResultsData were available for 1553 participants. In general, there were no significant differences in the rank positions between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, with the exception of teeth with caries and teeth with large demarcated opacities. Very white teeth had the highest rating in both localities. Overall, there was a trend for teeth with fluorosis to be ranked more favourably in the fluoridated community; for TF 1 and TF 2 this preference was significant (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest teeth that are uniformly very white have the highest preference. The rankings suggest teeth with a fluorosis score of TF 1 may not be considered aesthetically objectionable to this population and age group. The image depicting a tooth with caries and the image with large demarcated opacities were deemed to be the least favoured. Participant preference of images depicting fluorosis falls with increasing severity of fluorosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Adolescents' perceptions of the aesthetic impact of dental fluorosis vs. other dental conditions in areas with and without water fluoridation

McGrady

Ellwood²,

Goodwin

et al. 2012

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings were different from Kershaw et al, McGrady et al and Browne et al, in which tooth color was associated with the poorest esthetic rating, as these studies did not include missing anterior teeth in their assessment criteria. [8][9][10] It is commonly thought that women were more concerned over their orofacial esthetic and more critical in judging their dental appearance [11]. In this study, both women and men expressed similar levels of satisfaction towards their orofacial esthetic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Patientrs Self-Assessment on Orofacial Aesthetic

Loo¹,

Ong²,

Tarib³

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 11th International Dentistry Scientific Meeting (IDSM 2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Appearance is important in social interactions and are very subjective. The patients' demand is crucial to achieve successful esthetic results. Demographic background may be one of the contributing factors that lead to such a demand. Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) has been developed to measure these esthetic aspects. It contains seven (7) orofacial esthetic aspects. A total of 70 patients requiring anterior direct or indirect restorations were recruited through convenience sampling and answered OES during their visit to the dental clinic in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. A chi-squared test was used to correlate patient's background variables and their orofacial esthetic perception. Patients were generally satisfied with their overall orofacial esthetic. Three esthetic aspects that patients were most dissatisfied with were missing tooth (77.5%), asymmetrical dental arch (42.9%) and tooth color (41.4%). Patients' orofacial esthetic perceptions did not differ significantly regardless of their various backgrounds, except ethnicity. The findings suggested that there was no significant influences of background variables on patient's orofacial esthetic perception. OES can serve as a comprehensive index for clinicians to understand patients' orofacial esthetics perception and expectation of treatment outcomes.

show abstract

“…Recently, both an increase and a decrease in the prevalence of fluorosis have been reported [Riordan, 2002;Whelton et al, 2006;Do and Spencer, 2007c;Beltran-Aguilar et al, 2010]; however, there is general agreement that moderate to severe forms of fluorosis in areas with non-fluoridated or optimally fluoridated drinking water are uncommon [Stephen et al, 2002;Bottenberg et al, 2004;Cochran et al, 2004a;Conway et al, 2005;Vallejos-Sanchez et al, 2006;Do and Spencer, 2007c;Beltran-Aguilar et al, 2010]. Also, mild fluorosis is of little concern for parents and has little or no effect on children's oral health-related quality of life [Sigurjons et al, 2004;Do and Spencer, 2007a;Chankanka et al, 2010;Browne et al, 2011].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Low and Standard Fluoride Toothpastes on Caries and Fluorosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the anti-caries effects of standard fluoride (F) toothpastes are well established, their use by preschoolers (2- to 5-year-olds) has given rise to concerns regarding the development of dental fluorosis. Thus, a widespread support of low F toothpastes has been observed. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of low (<600 ppm) and standard (1,000-1,500 ppm) F toothpastes on the prevention of caries in the primary dentition and aesthetically objectionable (moderate to severe) fluorosis in the permanent dentition. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses were carried out. Two examiners independently screened 1,932 records and read 159 potentially eligible full-text articles. Data regarding characteristics of participants, interventions, outcomes, length of follow-up and potential of bias were independently extracted by two examiners and disagreements were solved by consensus after consulting a third examiner. In order to assess the effects of low and standard F toothpastes on the proportion of children developing caries and fluorosis, pooled relative risks (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a fixed and a random-effects model, respectively. Five clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Low F toothpastes significantly increased the risk of caries in primary teeth [RR = 1.13 (1.07-1.20); 4,634 participants in three studies] and did not significantly decrease the risk of aesthetically objectionable fluorosis in the upper anterior permanent teeth [RR = 0.32 (0.03-2.97); 1,968 participants in two studies]. There is no evidence to support the use of low F toothpastes by preschoolers regarding caries and fluorosis prevention.

show abstract

The aesthetic impact of enamel fluorosis on Irish adolescents

Abstract: TF3 level of fluorosis represented the break point at which enamel fluorosis became aesthetically objectionable to these participants. Low grades of fluorosis (TF1 and TF2) were rated similarly to the photograph depicting no fluorosis (TF0).

Cited by 21 publications

References 16 publications

Adolescents' perceptions of the aesthetic impact of dental fluorosis vs. other dental conditions in areas with and without water fluoridation

Adolescents' perceptions of the aesthetic impact of dental fluorosis vs. other dental conditions in areas with and without water fluoridation

Patientrs Self-Assessment on Orofacial Aesthetic

Effects of Low and Standard Fluoride Toothpastes on Caries and Fluorosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About