Abstract
Backgrounds
The esthetics of a smile holds significant importance in an individual’s self-esteem and overall quality of life. In the realm of cosmetic dentistry, smile design has traditionally relied on conventional methods, but recent advances in technology have introduced digital smile design (DSD) as a promising alternative.
Keywords: Conventional smile design; digital smile design; patient satisfaction
Materials and Methods:
In this randomized controlled trial, 150 adult patients seeking smile enhancement procedures were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two groups: the DSD group or the conventional smile design group. The DSD group underwent smile design using digital technology, including intraoral scans, computer-aided design, and 3D simulations. Meanwhile, the conventional smile design group received smile design through traditional methods, involving manual impressions, stone models, and manual wax-ups. Patient satisfaction was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 immediately after the procedure, while treatment outcomes were assessed three months post-procedure by dental professionals using a standardized assessment scale.
Results:
In terms of patient satisfaction, the DSD group demonstrated a mean score of 85.4 (SD ± 6.2), while the conventional smile design group had a mean score of 79.8 (SD ± 7.1). This suggests that patients in the DSD group reported higher levels of satisfaction with their smile enhancements. Regarding treatment outcomes, 92% of patients in the DSD group exhibited excellent restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetics, whereas 78% of patients in the conventional smile design group achieved the same level of excellence. These findings collectively indicate that digital smile design (DSD) may yield superior patient satisfaction and improved treatment outcomes when compared to conventional smile design methods, particularly with regard to esthetic results and overall patient contentment.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the results of this randomized controlled trial emphasize the potential advantages of integrating digital technology into smile design procedures.
INTRODUCTION
A captivating smile is a vital component of an individual’s self-confidence and emotional well-being, making it a focal point in the realm of cosmetic dentistry. For decades, traditional methods have been employed in the field of smile design to enhance dental esthetics and restore patients’ self-assurance. However, the landscape of dental technology has evolved significantly with the advent of digital smile design (DSD), offering a novel approach to smile enhancement.
Conventional smile design traditionally relied on manual impressions, stone models, and manual wax-ups to visualize and plan cosmetic procedures. While these methods have been effective, DSD harnesses digital technology, including intraoral scans, computer-aided design, and 3D simulations, to create a precise and patient-specific treatment plan. This innovative approach has the potential to revolutionize cosmetic dentistry by enhancing treatment precision and patient satisfaction.
To comprehensively evaluate the impact of DSD, this study embarks on a randomized controlled trial comparing patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes between DSD and conventional smile design methods. By systematically assessing the advantages and limitations of these two approaches, this research aims to provide valuable insights into the future of smile enhancement procedures in cosmetic dentistry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This study employs a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design to compare patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes between digital smile design (DSD) and conventional smile design methods.
Participants
A total of 150 adult patients seeking smile enhancement procedures were recruited for this study. Inclusion criteria encompassed patients with a desire for smile enhancement and eligibility for cosmetic dental procedures.
Randomization
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups using computer-generated randomization: the DSD group or the conventional smile design group. Randomization aimed to ensure an unbiased distribution of participants between the two treatment modalities.
Interventions
Digital smile design (DSD) group
Patients in this group underwent smile design using digital technology. Intraoral scans were taken to create digital models of the patient’s dentition. Computer-aided design (CAD) software was employed to plan smile enhancements, incorporating patient-specific preferences. 3D simulations were generated to visualize the proposed changes.
Conventional smile design group
Patients in this group received smile design through traditional methods. Manual impressions were taken to create physical models of the patient’s dentition. Manual wax-ups were performed to plan and visualize the smile enhancements.
Outcome measures
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction was evaluated immediately after the completion of the smile enhancement procedure. A visual analog scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (extremely dissatisfied) to 100 (extremely satisfied), was utilized to measure patient satisfaction.
Treatment outcomes
Treatment outcomes were assessed at a follow-up appointment scheduled three months post-procedure. Dental professionals, blinded to the treatment group, used a standardized assessment scale to evaluate restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetics.
Data collection
Patient satisfaction scores were collected by administering the VAS during a post-procedure visit. Dental professionals assessed treatment outcomes during the three-month follow-up appointment.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were computed for patient satisfaction scores in both groups. Inferential statistics, such as t-tests and Chi-square tests, were employed to compare patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes between the DSD and conventional smile design groups.
RESULTS
Table 1 displays the patient satisfaction scores for the two groups. In the Digital Smile Design (DSD) group, the mean patient satisfaction score was 87.2 (±6.5), while in the Conventional Smile Design group, the mean score was 81.5 (±7.2). These scores indicate that patients in the DSD group reported higher levels of satisfaction with their smile enhancement procedures compared to the conventional group.
Table 2 presents the assessment of treatment outcomes in terms of restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetics. In the Digital Smile Design (DSD) group, 92% of patients exhibited excellent outcomes, while 6% were rated as good, and 2% as fair. No patients in this group received a poor rating. In contrast, the Conventional Smile Design group had 78% of patients with excellent outcomes, 15% with good outcomes, 5% with fair outcomes, and 2% with poor outcomes.
These results suggest that patients in the DSD group demonstrated superior treatment outcomes, with a higher proportion achieving excellent restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetics compared to the conventional group.
DISCUSSION
The results of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) provide valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of digital smile design (DSD) versus conventional smile design methods in the realm of cosmetic dentistry.
The findings from this study reveal a notable difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups. Patients who underwent smile enhancement procedures using DSD reported a significantly higher mean satisfaction score (87.2 ± 6.5) compared to those in the conventional smile design group (81.5 ± 7.2). This difference is clinically significant and aligns with previous research, indicating that digital technology, with its capacity for precise planning and 3D visualization, may lead to improved patient experiences and higher satisfaction levels.
In terms of objective treatment outcomes, the DSD group exhibited remarkable success, with 92% of patients achieving an excellent rating in terms of restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetics. The conventional smile design group also showed positive outcomes, with 78% of patients achieving excellence. However, it is noteworthy that a higher proportion of patients in the DSD group achieved excellent outcomes, indicating the potential superiority of this approach in achieving precise and esthetically pleasing results.
These findings align with the growing body of literature highlighting the advantages of digital technology in dental procedures, particularly in cosmetic dentistry. DSD offers a level of precision and predictability that can contribute to superior treatment outcomes, as demonstrated in this study.
The results of this RCT have practical implications for cosmetic dentistry practice. Dental practitioners may consider adopting digital smile design techniques to enhance patient satisfaction and achieve optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, these findings emphasize the importance of ongoing professional development to ensure that dental professionals are proficient in utilizing digital tools effectively.
CONCLUSION
Patients undergoing DSD reported higher levels of satisfaction, and a larger proportion of them achieved excellent restoration fit, occlusion, and esthetic outcomes.
Source
https://journals.lww.com/jpbs/fulltext/2024/16001/assessment_of_patient_satisfaction_and_treatment.193.aspx
References
- Robinson FG The impact of a smile. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138:1162–6.
- Coachman C, Calamita MA, Sesma N Dynamic documentation of the smile and the 2D/3D digital smile design process. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017; 37:183–93.
- Layton D Smile design: Orthodontic perspective. Semin Orthod 2008; 14:146–55.
- Coachman C, Paravina RD Digitally enhanced esthetic dentistry – from treatment planning to quality control. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016; 28 Suppl 1 S3–4 doi: 10.1111/jerd.12205.
- Gürel G The Science and Art of Porcelain Laminate Veneers. Quintessence Publishing 2003 Available from: https://www.quintessence-publishing.com/deu/en/product/the-science-and-art-of-porcelain-laminate-veneers [Last accessed on 2023 Jan 08].
- Ahmed KE, Vaidyanathan M Contemporary Esthetic Dentistry. Wiley-Blackwell 2012 Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopr.13176 [Last accessed on 2023 Jan 08].
- Christensen GJ Use of CAD/CAM in the practice of dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141 Suppl 2 3S–6S.
- Al-Rawi B, Kaisarly D, Maghaireh GA, Alzoubi KH, Lynch E Influence of training on CAD/CAM restoration quality and productivity: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2017; 62:72–7.
