METHODS: YouTube videos were systematically acquired with 4 search terms. The top 50 videos per search term by the number of views were stored in a YouTube account. A set of inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, videos were assessed for viewing characteristics, a 4-point scoring system (0-3) was applied to evaluate QOI in 10 predetermined domains, and a 3-point scoring system (0-2) was applied to evaluate COI. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater and interrater reliability tests were performed.

RESULTS: Strong intrarater and interrater reliability scores were observed. Sixty-three videos from the top 58 most-viewed DPs were viewed 1,395,471 times (range, 414-124,939). Most DPs originated from the United States (20%), and orthodontists (62%) uploaded most of the videos. The mean number of reported domains was 2.03 ± 2.40 (out of 10). The mean overall QOI score per domain was 0.36 ± 0.79 (out of 3). The "Placement of miniscrews" domain scored highest (1.23 ± 0.75). The "Cost of miniscrews placement" domain scored the lowest (0.03 ± 0.25). The mean overall QOI score per DP was 3.59 ± 5.64 (out of 30). The COI in 32 videos was immeasurable, and only 2 avoided using technical words.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine esthetic perceptions of the Malaysian population regarding the width of buccal corridor spaces and their effect on smile esthetics in individuals with short, normal, and long faces.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The image of a smiling individual with a mesofacial face was modified to create 2 different facial types (brachyfacial and dolicofacial). Each face form was further modified into 5 different buccal corridors (2%, 10%, 15%, 22%, and 28%). The images were submitted to 3 different ethnic groups of evaluators (Chinese, Malay, Indian; 100 each), ranging between 17 and 21 years of age. A visual analog scale (50 mm in length) was used for assessment. The scores given to each image were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test, and pairwise comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

RESULTS: All 3 groups of evaluators could distinguish gradations of dark spaces in the buccal corridor at 2%, 10%, and 28%. Statistically significant differences were observed among 3 groups of evaluators in esthetic perception when pairwise comparisons were performed. A 15% buccal corridor was found to score esthetically equally within 3 face types by all 3 groups of evaluators. The Indian population was more critical in evaluation than the Chinese or Malay populations. In a pairwise comparison, more significant differences were found between long and short faces and the normal face; the normal face was compared with long and short faces separately.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients provided with ISRPDs in distal edentulous arches based on different surgical and prosthodontic protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic and manual literature search was conducted in 3 databases, PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library, for clinical studies on distal extension ISRPDs related to clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Kennedy Class I and II arches described in articles published from January 2000 to December 2023 were included. Clinical parameters regarding implant type, location, loading protocols, and implant survival rate and PROMs including masticatory performance, esthetics, and overall satisfaction were compared. The risk of bias was determined by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).

RESULTS: An initial total of 103 studies were identified, but only 11 articles were selected after implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated PROMs, and 6 studies evaluated clinical outcomes (5 studies evaluated both). The implant survival rate ranged from 91.7% to 100%, with no clear differentiation among the studies with immediate or delayed loading protocols. Most studies described implants positioned in the molar region. In general, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) improved significantly with ISRPDs compared with conventional removable partial dentures (RPDs) or RPDs with healing abutments. Posttreatment clinical outcomes revealed stable peri-implant health with no significant bone loss or prosthetic complications. No specific implant configuration, including implant type and location or attachment system, appeared to be better than another. Ball attachments were the commonly used attachments. Two studies were of high risk and 3 studies of low risk. The remaining 6 studies were judged to have some concerns based on the RoB 2.0 analysis.