Perception of smile attractiveness among orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons in Saudi Arabia.
Buccal corridors
gingival display
laypersons
orthodontists
restorative dentists
smile arc
smile attractiveness
smile features
Journal
Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD
ISSN: 0972-0707
Titre abrégé: J Conserv Dent
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101147009
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
2
3
2019
pubmed:
2
3
2019
medline:
2
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A smile is defined as a universal welcome. The perception of smile attractiveness is affected by the persons' social background and their own experiences. The existing literature states that orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons have different opinions. The aim of this study is to compare the perception of orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons regarding smile esthetics. A survey-based study was conducted. The target population was orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons in Saudi Arabia. An electronic survey that included digitally altered photographs representing different smile parameters was designed by an Adobe Photoshop Certified Expert. Participants were asked to choose the most attractive smile in each question. Unilateral changes in the width or length of the central incisors were the least attractive among the three groups. About 38%, 48%, and 41% of the participating orthodontics, restorative dentists, and laypersons, respectively, found that wider buccal corridors were more attractive. Moreover, 27% of the laypersons found the reversed smile arc to be attractive. The tolerance level in evaluating the asymmetry and the width of the buccal corridors was similar for the three groups. Laypersons were less sensitive to the deviations from the ideal in the smile arc and the amount of lower lip coverage of the incisors. Understanding the differences in the perception of smile attractiveness among orthodontists, restorative dentists and laypersons will undoubtedly be beneficial in diagnosis, setting treatment objectives and treatment planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A smile is defined as a universal welcome. The perception of smile attractiveness is affected by the persons' social background and their own experiences. The existing literature states that orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons have different opinions.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to compare the perception of orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons regarding smile esthetics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A survey-based study was conducted. The target population was orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons in Saudi Arabia. An electronic survey that included digitally altered photographs representing different smile parameters was designed by an Adobe Photoshop Certified Expert. Participants were asked to choose the most attractive smile in each question.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Unilateral changes in the width or length of the central incisors were the least attractive among the three groups. About 38%, 48%, and 41% of the participating orthodontics, restorative dentists, and laypersons, respectively, found that wider buccal corridors were more attractive. Moreover, 27% of the laypersons found the reversed smile arc to be attractive.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The tolerance level in evaluating the asymmetry and the width of the buccal corridors was similar for the three groups. Laypersons were less sensitive to the deviations from the ideal in the smile arc and the amount of lower lip coverage of the incisors.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the differences in the perception of smile attractiveness among orthodontists, restorative dentists and laypersons will undoubtedly be beneficial in diagnosis, setting treatment objectives and treatment planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30820086
doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_429_18
pii: JCD-22-69
pmc: PMC6385572
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
69-75Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24
pubmed: 10825866
J Orthod. 2004 Sep;31(3):204-9; discussion 201
pubmed: 15489364
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Mar;127(3):343-50
pubmed: 15775949
Eur J Orthod. 2005 Jun;27(3):292-5
pubmed: 15947230
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):141-51
pubmed: 16905057
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):748-53
pubmed: 18068592
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jul;79(4):634-9
pubmed: 19537851
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Dec;25(6):392-401
pubmed: 24180675
J Dent (Tehran). 2016 Mar;13(2):85-91
pubmed: 27928236
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Jul 8;29(4):291-297
pubmed: 28556552
J Prosthet Dent. 1978 May;39(5):502-4
pubmed: 349139
J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Jan;51(1):24-8
pubmed: 6583388
J Am Dent Assoc. 1980 Mar;100(3):345-52
pubmed: 6928165
Semin Orthod. 1998 Sep;4(3):146-52
pubmed: 9807151