Cross-sectional study reports high patient satisfaction and favorable clinical outcomes following Digital Smile Design, suggesting effective aesthetic treatment.
Background: Digital Smile Design (DSD) enables clinicians to plan and preview aesthetic dental treatments using digital tools such as CAD/CAM and 3D imaging. Evidence on patient satisfaction and short-term clinical outcomes after DSD is limited. Objective: To evaluate patient demographics, clinical characteristics, satisfaction, and six-month clinical outcomes following DSD in a tertiary dental centre. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Prosthodontics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar from January 2024 to June 2024. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional study of 210 patients undergoing DSD (January–2024 June 2024. Demographic and clinical data were collected using a structured proforma. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 5-point Likert questionnaire across aesthetic, functional, and comfort domains; internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was calculated. Clinical outcomes (gingival health, tooth alignment, restoration longevity, and complications) were assessed at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression identified predictors of satisfaction (p<0.05). Results: Most participants were female (60%), urban residents (74.3%), and aged 26–35 years (39%). Over 80% reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” across domains. At six months, excellent gingival health was observed in 62.9% and excellent restoration longevity in 67.6%; minor sensitivity occurred in 7.6%. Education, oral hygiene, previous cosmetic treatment, and income were significant predictors of satisfaction (p<0.05). Conclusion: DSD was associated with high short-term patient satisfaction and favourable six-month clinical outcomes. However, the limitations of causal inference arise from the cross-sectional design, single-centre setting, convenience sampling, and limited follow-up. Longitudinal and comparative studies are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shakir et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: