Patients’ decisions regarding orthodontic treatment are influenced by a variety of factors, such as their subjective opinions of how their oral cavity looks, age, gender, educational level, and income. The present study aimed to measure the orthodontic treatments needs for the Saudi Arabian population, and also to report potential barriers towards it. It is an observational study with cross sectional design. Data was collected from nationals and residents living in Saudi Arabia and who are at least 18 years old. A total of 1184 adult patients (880 females and 304 males) were included in this study. The population for the study was reached and chosen using a non-probability snowball sampling method. A validated and reliable questionnaire was distributed to the participants electronically through google form. Inferential statistics was applied using Pearson Chi Square test. p value < 0.05 was considered significant. The majority of the sample (73.2%) exhibited a favorable attitude toward orthodontic treatment. Most participants including male and female gender wanted orthodontic treatment primarily to have their protruding teeth fixed. The proportion of persons who cited chewing difficulty as the reason they needed orthodontic treatment was strongly influenced by the monthly income variable (p = 0.005). Cost and time of orthodontic therapy were the biggest obstacles to undergoing treatment, accounting for 34.5% and 19.5%, respectively. There was highly significant difference between the underlying medical conditions and the age and monthly income variables (p = 0.000). Based on the findings of the present study, it can be concluded that protruding teeth are the most important treatment needs perceived by the Saudi population, followed by spacing in between teeth, crowding of teeth, and unaesthetic smile. Cost of the orthodontic treatment was identified as the most significant barrier to the treatment needs, followed by long duration of orthodontic treatment, and pain.

Background: The aim of the study was to determine the facial divergence and lip position combinations that are most and least preferred, and to investigate whether age or gender has an impact on these preferences. Methods: The current investigation was carried out on a sample of 1077 individuals who were not experts in the field (253 men and 824 females). The research employed black silhouette photographs of profiles featuring different lip locations and profile divergences. The recruitment of participants was conducted in order to assess the attractiveness of the profiles, employing a Likert scale. The various positions of the lips and variations in facial profiles were thoroughly categorized. Results were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results: The findings of the research demonstrated that aesthetic perceptions displayed diversity when considering different lip locations and profile divergences. It was shown that neutral lip positions were predominantly favored, accounting for approximately 40.2% of the total frequencies in the anterior diverging group. It is noteworthy to highlight the aesthetically pleasing features exhibited by those with the most prominent lip position, occurring at a frequency of 10.9% in straight-diverging group. In the posterior divergent group, the most protruded lip position, showed very attractive aesthetics with frequency (7.1%). Gender, age, region, and level of education had significant influence on aesthetic perception. Conclusions: The variety of aesthetic preferences is influenced by the location of the lips and the divergence of the facial profile, resulting in different outcomes within the categories of anterior, straight, and posterior divergence. Clinicians are advised to customize the treatment regimen in order to correspond with the unique desires and preferences of the patient.

The objective of this study is to discover any possible association of gender or practitioner classification with orthodontic knowledge and attitudes towards orthodontic treatment. Descriptive cross-sectional research was conducted on two groups of dentists in the Ha’il region of Saudi Arabia. Group I included general practitioners, while Group II had non-orthodontic specialists. The findings suggest a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference between the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists. Independent two tailed t-scores for difference in Knowledge (t-score = 3.19919, p = 0.003) and Attitude (t-score = 2.16314, p = 0.048319), highlight significant disparities in the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of knowledge and attitudes based on gender differences. This study captures and highlights subtle information that is very significant in dealing with critically important orthodontics issues. The study suggests that it is possible that a non-orthodontic specialist may suggest an altogether different line of treatment with different consequences when compared to a general practitioner and vice versa. This may result in unwanted, permanent orthodontic effects, highlighting the significance of the early stage of orthodontic treatment awareness. This research reveals disparities between the perceptions of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists about the stage and relevance of orthodontic treatment. It is strongly advised to see an orthodontic expert rather than a general practitioner or non-orthodontic specialist for orthodontic issues.

Background: Clinical problems are frequently detected when there are various irregularities in the number, structure, quantity, size, and eruption of the teeth. Supernumerary teeth can be found in almost any part of the dental arch, and because they are typically asymptomatic, they are frequently found by radiographic screening. Case report: The existence of the supernumerary teeth is the most frequent reason for impacted permanent teeth. This article describes the surgical and orthodontic treatment of a 20-year-old female with many supernumerary teeth and an impacted permanent tooth. All supernumerary teeth in the maxillary arch were extracted as part of the patient's treatment, and then the maxillary teeth were aligned using fixed appliances. The mandibular arch is left untreated, as the surgical removal of mandibular supernumerary teeth could damage the inferior alveolar nerve and result in numbness in the lower lip. Conclusion: In this case, we removed the extra teeth and used orthodontic traction to bring the remaining teeth into the proper position. After the procedure, the cosmetic outcome was greatly improved, and the patient's confidence increased.

Background: This study’s objectives are to ascertain the frequency of congenital tooth missing and evaluate the relationship between gender and side characteristics. Method: This retrospective study involved participants who attended private dental clinics as well as a dental college in Hail, Saudi Arabia. Out of the 1,150 patients examined, 494 (220 males and 274 females) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Different types of tooth agenesis were evaluated and classified into the following categories: mild (one or two teeth missing), moderate (three to five teeth missing), and severe (six or more teeth missing). The analysis did not include third molars. The existence of retained primary teeth was noted, along with any dental abnormalities accompanying tooth agenesis. Statistical analysis was conducted utilizing the chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test to explore possible relationships between variables. A significance level of 5% (alpha = 0.05) was utilized. Results: Out of the 1150 panoramic radiographs that were examined, 494 individuals (220 (44.5%) males and 274 (55.5%) females) met the criteria for inclusion. The prevalence of congenitally missing permanent teeth was 65 (13.2%) in the study sample. The prevalence of congenitally missing teeth were more incidence in maxilla 36 (56.3%) than mandible 28 (43.8%). There is statistically significant association between the occurrence of congenitally missing teeth and gender or arch (p < 0.05). The prevalence of dental anomalies was similar in both sides. There are not a statistically significant association (p > 0.05) between the occurrence of congenitally missing teeth and side. The second premolar was the most commonly missing (7.3%). The retained deciduous teeth was shown to be the most common dental anomaly, with a prevalence of 15 (23.4%). Conclusions: The prevalence of congenitally missing teeth fell within the range reported in previous studies. Second premolars were the most frequently congenitally missing teeth, with maxillary teeth more commonly affected than mandibular ones.