An aesthetic smile has a number of components, and people generally equate a good dental appearance with success in many areas of life. The features that determine smile aesthetics could provide significant insights into post-treatment satisfaction and may predict a patient’s objectives when undergoing treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how smile characteristics are perceived by dental students. The study was performed in 431 local and international dental students at the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. The study data were collected using a three-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire included sociodemographic items, i.e., student gender, age, nationality, and years of study; the second consisted of questions about facial aesthetic features; and the third elicited responses to photographs of 17 different smiles retrieved from the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Clinic of Orthodontics database. The smile aesthetics were evaluated according to their dentolabial, dentogingival, dental, and dental arch characteristics using a 5-point numeric rating scale (1, best; 5, worst). The data were analysed using the Pearson’s chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. The study included 336 local and 95 international dental students (132 men [30.6%], 299 women [69.4%]). Significantly more women than men focused on a person’s teeth when communicating (41.5% vs.32.6%, p < 0.005). Women were more critical than men when evaluating gingival smile, the ‘golden proportion’, occlusal cant, and dental crowding. The most unfavourable smile characteristics were identified in the dental analysis category, with hypodontia ranked as the worst smile feature (mean numeric rating scale score 4.71). Among dental students, the most distracting characteristics of a smile when determining its attractiveness were hypodontia, gingival smile, a reversed curvature of the occlusal plane, and dental crowding.

Digit sucking, tongue thrust swallowing, and mouth breathing are potential risk factors for development of malocclusion. The purpose of this study was to verify the prevalence of different occlusal traits among 5-7-year-old children and assess their relationship with oral habits. The study included 503 pre-school children (260 boys and 243 girls) with a mean age of 5.95 years. Different occlusal traits were verified by intraoral examination. Oral habits were diagnosed using data gathered from clinical examination of occlusion and extra-oral assessment of the face, combined with a questionnaire for parents. The study demonstrated that 71.4% of the children presented with 1 or more attributes of malocclusion and 16.9% had oral habits. The vertical and sagittal malrelation of incisors, as well as spacing, were the predominant features. This study showed that digit suckers have higher incidence of anterior open bite (P=0.013) and posterior crossbite (P=0.005). The infantile type of swallowing demonstrated strong association (P=0.001) with anterior open bite. Non-nutritive sucking habits and tongue thrust swallowing are significant risk factors for the development of anterior open bite and posterior crossbite in pre-school children.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental retainers. One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines. The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed retainer was the retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice (p < 0.05). A combination of fixed and removable retainers was the most often used in an orthodontic retention. Evidence-based guidelines are desired for a common retention protocol.