Our study is based on the hypothesis that the prevalence of malocclusions in children is higher in the mining areas from North-Western (NW) Romania than in other geographic areas. We also considered that the distribution of the different types of malocclusions can be correlated with environmental factors. Therefore, the main purpose of the current study was to assess the prevalence of malocclusions in children from the mining areas in NW Romania. Another purpose was to establish the influence of certain environmental factors such as gender, geographical area of origin, and ethnicity on the distribution of malocclusions in order to provide an epidemiological reference for the planning of preventive and treatment programs adapted to the particularity of the mining areas. This cross-sectional study was performed in 2015–2016. The study batch consisted of 960 children from the mining areas, aged 7–14 years, in the period of mixed dentition and early permanent dentition. The clinical examination was conducted by a single examiner, an orthodontic specialist (TBI), in order to avoid inter-operator bias. Occlusion was registered according to Bjoerk. Occlusal clinical signs were followed for the determination of malocclusions. Most children had malocclusions (93.5%). The percentage of anomalies was significantly higher in subjects from Rosia Montana, in girls, and in the Romanians. Data showed that Angle Class I was the most prevalent malocclusion (60.21%), followed by crowding (47.5%), midline shift (43.33%), and deep bite (28.65%). The independent association between ethnicity and total malocclusions shows that the Romanian subjects presented a 3.31 higher chance of developing malocclusions than the Romani ones. The presence of malocclusions was independently influenced by all the studied environmental factors, namely gender, geographical area, and ethnicity. Our results could be relevant for oral health policy-making, i.e., planning preventive and treatment measures of malocclusions, adapted to the peculiarity of the studied mining areas.

Dental age assessment is useful in various medical fields. The Demirjian method for dental age estimation is one of the most widely used in the field of pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of the Demirjian method in determining age in a sample of girls and boys from Oradea, Romania. This retrospective and radiographic study was based on the evaluation of 1006 panoramic radiographs, belonging to 1006 patients (431 boys and 575 girls) with ages between 3 and 13.9 years from the city of Oradea, Romania. They were collected from three private dental practices from Oradea and were analyzed between 1 September 2021, and 10 November 2021. The patients were distributed into 11 age groups, each group spanning over one year (e.g., 3–3.9, 4–4.9). For the assessment of dental age, the Demirjian method was used, which is based on the evaluation of the developmental stages of the lower left permanent teeth. The mean chronological age of the patients was 9.496 ± 2.218 years, and the mean dental age was 10.934 ± 2.585 years. The overestimation of dental age was obtained in all age groups for the entire sample. As such, dental age was higher than chronological age, with values varying from 0.34 years in the 3–3.9 years age group to 1.7 years in the 10–10.9 years age group. In girls, dental age was higher than chronological age, with values varying from 0.46 years in the 3–3.9 years age group to 1.73 years in the 11–11.9 years age group, while in boys, the values varied from 0.15 years in the first age group to 2.02 years in the 10–10.9 years age group. The comparison of the differences between chronological age and dental age according to the gender of the patients revealed that the distribution of the differences was nonparametric in both groups according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (p < 0.05). The differences between the groups were not significant according to the Mann–Whitney U test. However, larger differences were identified for boys (1.46 years) than girls (1.417 years), with an overestimation of the dental age. The Demirjian method overestimated the age of the children included in the investigated sample, with different values for the different age groups investigated, and requires adaptations.

Dental caries is a chronic disease that can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Poor oral hygiene and unhealthy eating habits are the most incriminating factors in the onset of dental caries, but age has been proven to impact the disease. The aim of this study was to find correlations between age and the evolution of dental caries in the first permanent molars in children. The retrospective study was conducted based on 400 panoramic radiographs, belonging to Romanian children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. All first permanent molars were investigated, and the carious lesions were classified according to their depth. The chronological age was calculated by subtracting the patient’s date of birth from the date when the radiograph was performed, while for the assessment of dental age, the Demirjian method was used. The gender of the patients did not significantly influence the number of superficial, medium, and deep carious lesions. Most of the identified carious lesions were superficial. Regarding correlations between age and dental caries, there was an association between the decrease in the chronological age and the increase in the number of superficial carious lesions on the first permanent molars and also an association between the increase in the chronological age or dental age and the increase in the number of medium and deep carious lesions on the first permanent molars. Age can impact the development of dental caries in first permanent molars.

Background and Objectives: Smile is an important mark of beauty, and smile attractiveness can be influenced by various factors, one of these being the amount of gingival exposure. The aim of this research was to evaluate the perception of an ideal gingival exposure in smile in a sample of Romanian dentists and laypersons, and to find out what is the most important aspect that influences the smile perception for the respondents included in the study sample. Materials and Methods: An online survey was conducted between 3 February 2020 and 31 October 2020. The authors developed a short questionnaire consisting of 7 items. The first four items investigated the respondents’ age, gender, profession and whether or not they underwent an orthodontic treatment in the past. For items 5 and 6, participants had to choose the most and the least attractive amount of gingival exposure, and for the last item they had to choose the factor that mostly influences the smile attractiveness in their opinion. Results: 235 questionnaires remained in the study. The sample consisted of 194 women and 41 men, 162 laypersons and 73 dentists. The average value for the most attractive amount of gingival exposure was −0.57 ± 2.407 mm, with a median value of 0 mm while the average value for the least attractive amount of gingival exposure was 1.43 ± 3.785 mm, with a median value of 4 mm. The differences between the most or least attractive gingival exposure perceived by the participants were not significant according to gender or professional category (p > 0.05), but, when compared between having or not having an orthodontic treatment in the past the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). As such, participants who had an orthodontic treatment in the past perceived a significantly higher value for the most attractive gingival exposure, and a significantly higher value for the least attractive gingival exposure (p = 0.026) than the participants who didn’t have an orthodontic treatment in the past. As for the factor that mainly influences smile attractiveness, laypersons chose significantly more frequent white teeth or aligned teeth (96%, 71.7%) while dentists chose significantly more frequent a gingival exposure between 0–3 mm (70.4%) as smile factors for an aesthetic smile (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study sample, the respondents considered that the most attractive smile involved a covering of 0.57 mm (in average) of the upper incisors by the upper lip. Although smile attractiveness did not appear to be influenced by gender or profession in this study population, it was influenced by previous orthodontic treatment. The participants’ roles of dentist or layperson influenced the factors chosen for an aesthetic smile.

The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers—HRs and VFRs—in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11–17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients—HRs group and VFRs group—at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (p < 0.001). Severe relapse was more frequently associated with the HRs rather than with VFRs (p < 0.05).

Background/Objectives: In-office bleaching commonly employs high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP) or carbamide peroxide (CP), which may compromise enamel integrity. This in vitro paired-design study aimed to compare the chemical and mechanical effects of three commercial bleaching agents—Opalescence Boost (40% HP), Opalescence Quick (45% CP), and BlancOne Ultra+ (35% HP)—on human enamel. The null hypothesis assumed no significant differences between the control and treated samples. Given the ongoing debate over pH, active ingredients, and enamel impact, comparing whitening systems remains clinically important. Methods: Forty-two extracted teeth were assigned to three experimental groups (n = 14) with matched controls. Each underwent a single bleaching session per manufacturer protocol: Opalescence Boost (≤60 min), Opalescence Quick (15–30 min), and BlancOne Ultra+ (three light-activated cycles of 8–10 min). Enamel chemical changes were analyzed by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (phosphate and carbonate bands), and surface hardness by Vickers microhardness testing. Paired t-tests (α = 0.05) assessed statistical significance. Results: FTIR analysis revealed alterations in phosphate and carbonate bands for all agents, most notably for Opalescence Boost and BlancOne Ultra+. Microhardness testing showed significant reductions in enamel hardness for Opalescence Boost (control: 37.21 ± 1.74 Hv; treated: 34.63 ± 1.70 Hv; p = 0.00) and Opalescence Quick (control: 45.82 ± 1.71 Hv; treated: 39.34 ± 1.94 Hv; p < 0.0001), whereas BlancOne Ultra+ showed no significant difference (control: 51.64 ± 1.59 HV; treated: 51.60 ± 2.34 Hv; p = 0.95). Conclusions: HP-based agents, particularly at higher concentrations, caused greater enamel alterations than CP-based products. While clinically relevant, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to in vitro limitations and natural enamel variability.