Influence of Different Parameters on the 
Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, 
Prosthodontists and Laypeople

BAYINDIR, FUNDA; Köseoğlu, Merve

doi:10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723

Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople

Merve KÖSEOĞLU, (Sakarya Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Sakarya, Türkiye)

Funda BAYINDIR (Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Erzurum, Türkiye)

Meandros Medical And Dental Journal

3 2

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 77 - 84 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723 İndeks Tarihi: 05-07-2022

Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople

Öz:

Objective: This study aimed to determine different parameters on the smile aesthetic perceptions of prosthodontists, general practitioner dentists and laypeople. Materials and Methods: A close-up, posed smile image of a young woman was digitally altered by using software. The shape of the incisal curvature was arranged as ideal, flat, reverse and the width-to-length ratio of the maxillary central tooth was set to 75%, 80% and 85% in the photographs. Incisal edge asymmetries in the maxillary central, lateral and canine teeth and midline diastema at varying dimensions of 0.5 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm were created. As the control group, a photograph without any asymmetry or diastema was used. A questionnaire was created using these photographs and subsequently administered by a researcher. The images were assessed by 180 evaluators, which included 60 prosthodontists, 60 dentists and 60 laypeople. Each evaluator was asked to rate the smile images with the help of a visual analogue scale. Obtained data were analysed by using One-Way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test. Results: The ideal incisal curvature, small amount of diastemas and incisal asymmetries and 80% width-to-length ratio of the maxillary central teeth were more aesthetic to all participants (p˂0.001). Conclusion: Laypeople’s aesthetic scores were higher than those of general practitioner dentists and prosthodontists in all groups. Aesthetic scores increase as the size of asymmetries decreases. Diastemas and incisal edge asymmetries were less perceptible laterally

Anahtar Kelime:

Genel Diş Hekimleri, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Uzmanları ve MeslekDışı Bireylerin Gülümseme Estetiği Algılarının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı protetik diş tedavisi uzmanları, genel diş hekimleri ve meslek dışı bireylerin gülümseme estetiği algılarını belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, kadın bir gönüllüden poz gülümsemesi esnasında alınan yakın çekim fotoğrafları kullanılmıştır. Fotoğraflar bir yazılım programıyla dijital olarak düzenlenmiştir. Fotoğraflarda insizal kurvatür şekli ideal, düz ve ters olarak ve maksiller santral dişin genişliği %75, %80 ve %85 olarak değiştirilmiştir. Maksiller santral, lateral ve kanin dişlerinde 0,5 mm, 1 mm ve 2 mm olmak üzere farklı boyutlarda insizal asimetri ve orta hatta aynı boyutlarda diastema oluşturulmuştur. Kontrol grubu olarak ise, herhangi bir asimetriye veya diastemaya sahip olmayan bir fotoğraf kullanılmıştır. Bu fotoğraflar kullanılarak bir anket oluşturulmuş ve bir araştırmacı tarafından uygulanmıştır. Fotoğraflar 60 genel diş hekimi, 60 protetik diş tedavisi uzmanı ve 60 meslek dışı birey olmak üzere toplam 180 kişi tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Her bir katılımcıdan fotoğrafları görsel analog skala yardımıyla değerlendirmesi istenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi ve post hoc Tukey testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: İdeal insizal kurvatür, küçük boyutlardaki diastemalar ve insizal asimetriler ile %80 genişlik/uzunluk oranına sahip maksiller santral dişler bütün katılımcılar tarafından daha estetik bulunmuşlardır (p˂0,001). Sonuç: Tüm gruplarda meslek dışı bireylerin estetik skorları, genel diş hekimleri ve protetik diş tedavisi uzmanlarından yüksek bulunmuştur. Asimetri azaldıkça estetik skorlar artmıştır. Orta hattan lateral yönde gidildikçe, daha büyük boyutlardaki insizal kenar asimetrileri algılanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. Characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 515-23.
2. Bhuvaneswaran M. Principles of smile design. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13: 225-32.
3. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11: 311-24.
4. Goldstein RE. Study of need for esthetics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1969; 21: 589-98.
5. Gochman DS. The measurement and development of dentally relevant motives. J Public Health Dent 1975; 35: 160-4.
6. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod. 1992; 62: 101-2.
7. Zachrisson BU. Esthetic factors involved in anterior tooth display and the smile: vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 432- 45.
8. Özdemir H, Köseoğlu M, Bayindir F. An investigation of the esthetic indicators of maxillary anterior teeth in young Turkish people. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120: 583-8.
9. Machado AW, Moon W, Gandini LG Jr. Influence of maxillary incisor edge asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 658-64.
10. Özdemir H, Köseoğlu M. Relationship between different points on the face and the width of maxillary central teeth in a Turkish population. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122: 63-8.
11. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 98-111.
12. Rufenacht CR. Fundamentals of esthetics. 1th ed. Chicago: Quintessence;1990.
13. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 24-8.
14. Chiche G, Pinault A. Esthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics. 1th ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1994.
15. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 141-51.
16. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 748-53.
17. Ker AJ, Chan R, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson’s perspective: a computer-based survey study. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1318- 27.
18. Koseoglu M, Bayindir F. Effects of gingival margin asymmetries on the smile esthetic perception of dental professionals and lay people. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; 32: 480-6.
19. Köseoğlu M, Özdemir H, Bayındır F. The evaluation of different smile parameters in the Turkish population. Int Dent Res 2018; 8: 1-6.
20. Rodrigues Cde D, Magnani R, Machado MS, Oliveira OB. The perception of smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 634- 9.
21. Rosenstiel SF, Rashid RG. Public preferences for anterior tooth variations: a web-based study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002; 14: 97-6.
22. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004; 31: 204-9.
23. Prasad V, Tandon P, Sharma VP, Singh GK, Maurya RP, Chugh V. Photographical evaluation of smile esthetics after extraction orthodontic treatment. Journal of Orthodontic Research 2015; 3: 49-56.
24. Correa BD, Vieira Bittencourt MA, Machado AW. Influence of maxillary canine gingival margin asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 55-63.
25. Al Taki A, Khalesi M, Shagmani M, Yahia I, Al Kaddah F. Perceptions of Altered Smile Esthetics: A Comparative Evaluation in Orthodontists, Dentists, and Laypersons. Int J Dent 2016; 2016: 7815274.
26. Eduarda Assad Duarte M, Martins Machado R, Fonseca Jardim da Motta A, Nelson Mucha J, Trindade Motta A. Morphological Simulation of Different Incisal Embrasures: Perception of Laypersons, Orthodontic Patients, General Dentists and Orthodontists. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017; 29: 68-78.
27. Álvarez-Álvarez L, Orozco-Varo A, Arroyo-Cruz G, JiménezCastellanos E. Width/Length Ratio in Maxillary Anterior Teeth. Comparative Study of Esthetic Preferences among Professionals and Laypersons. J Prosthodont 2019; 28: 416-20.
28. Geron S, Atalia W. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 778-84.
29. Kerosuo H, Al Enezi S, Kerosuo E, Abdulkarim E. Association between normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment need among Arab high school students. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 373-8.
30. Beyer JW, Lindauer SJ. Evaluation of dental midline position. Semin Orthod 1998; 4: 146-52.
31. Sharma N, Rosenstiel SF, Fields HW, Beck FM. Smile characterization by U.S. white, U.S. Asian Indian, and Indian populations. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107: 327-35.
32. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 557-63.
33. Akinboboye B, Umesi D, Ajayi Y. Transcultural perception of maxillary midline diastema. Int J Esthet Dent 2015; 10: 610-7.
34. Kumar S, Gandhi S, Valiathan A. Perception of smile esthetics among Indian dental professionals and laypersons. Indian J Dent Res 2012; 23: 295.
35. Dong JK, Rashid RG, Rosenstiel SF. Smile arcs of Caucasian and Korean youth. Int J Prosthodont 2009 ;22: 290-2.
36. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970; 57: 132-44.
37. Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, Kern M. Assessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113: 159-65.
38. Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Costa ACS, Ferreira MC, Bramante FS, Fialho MPN, Gurgel JA. Comparison of gingival display in smile attractiveness among restorative dentists, orthodontists, prosthodontists, periodontists, and laypeople. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123: 314-21.
39. Correa BD, Vieira Bittencourt MA, Machado AW. Influence of maxillary canine gingival margin asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 55-63.
40. Machado RM, Assad Duarte ME, Jardim da Motta AF, Mucha JN, Motta AT. Variations between maxillary central and lateral incisal edges and smile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 425-35.
41. Hussain A, Louca C, Leung A, Sharma P. The influence of varying maxillary incisor shape on perceived smile aesthetics. J Dent 2016; 50: 12-20.
42. Ioi H, Kang S, Shimomura T, Kim SS, Park SB, Son WS, et al. Effects of vertical positions of anterior teeth on smile esthetics in Japanese and korean orthodontists and orthodontic patients. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 274-82.
43. Pithon MM, Matos VO, da Silva Coqueiro R. Upper incisor exposure and aging: Perceptions of aesthetics in three age groups. J World Fed Orthod 2015; 4: 57-62.
44. Silva BP, Jiménez-Castellanos E, Martinez-de-Fuentes R, Greenberg JR, Chu S. Laypersons’ perception of facial and dental asymmetries. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 33: 162-71.
45. Machado AW, McComb RW, Moon W, Gandini LG Jr. Influence of the vertical position of maxillary central incisors on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 392-401.
46. Magne P, Salem P, Magne M. Influence of symmetry and balance on visual perception of a white female smile. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120: 573-82.
47. Nelson SJ, Ash MM. Wheeler’s dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 10th ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier; 2015.
48. Sterrett JD, Oliver T, Robinson F, Fortson W, Knaak B, Russell CM. Width/length ratios of normal clinical crowns of the maxillary anterior dentition in man. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 153-7.
49. Heravi F, Rashed R, Abachizadeh H. Esthetic preferences for the shape of anterior teeth in a posed smile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 806-14.
50. Witt M, Flores-Mir C. Laypeople’s preferences regarding frontal dentofacial esthetics: tooth-related factors. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142: 635-45.

APA	Köseoğlu M, BAYINDIR F (2021). Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. , 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
Chicago	Köseoğlu Merve,BAYINDIR FUNDA Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. (2021): 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
MLA	Köseoğlu Merve,BAYINDIR FUNDA Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. , 2021, ss.77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
AMA	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. . 2021; 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
Vancouver	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. . 2021; 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
IEEE	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F "Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople." , ss.77 - 84, 2021. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
ISNAD	Köseoğlu, Merve - BAYINDIR, FUNDA. "Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople". (2021), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723

APA	Köseoğlu M, BAYINDIR F (2021). Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal, 22(1), 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
Chicago	Köseoğlu Merve,BAYINDIR FUNDA Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal 22, no.1 (2021): 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
MLA	Köseoğlu Merve,BAYINDIR FUNDA Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal, vol.22, no.1, 2021, ss.77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
AMA	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal. 2021; 22(1): 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
Vancouver	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal. 2021; 22(1): 77 - 84. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
IEEE	Köseoğlu M,BAYINDIR F "Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople." Meandros Medical And Dental Journal, 22, ss.77 - 84, 2021. 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723
ISNAD	Köseoğlu, Merve - BAYINDIR, FUNDA. "Influence of Different Parameters on the Smile Esthetic Perception of Dentists, Prosthodontists and Laypeople". Meandros Medical And Dental Journal 22/1 (2021), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.4274/meandros.galenos.2020.83723