Perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2-dimensional photographs and 3-dimensional dentofacial images: a cross-sectional study.
2D photograph
3D dentofacial image
Aesthetics
Smile
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2023
16 Feb 2023
Historique:
accepted:
08
02
2023
received:
20
10
2022
entrez:
16
2
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
pubmed:
17
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2D photographs and 3D dentofacial images as perceived by orthodontists and graduate students. Forty-eight subjects finished orthodontic treatment were recruited with 2D photographs of frontal, oblique and lateral views as well as 3D dentofacial images. Twelve senior orthodontists and 13 postgraduate students were asked to rate the 2D and 3D smile simulations based on visual analog scale (VAS) and to vote for smile features that affect the attractiveness of smile. At the end, they completed a questionnaire about their views on different smile simulations. Wilcoxon signed-rank, Bland-Altman analysis, and multiple linear regression were used to compare the ratings and votes of smile perception between raters and between records. Orthodontists and postgraduate students rated smile consistently with 2D photographs, while orthodontists tended to give a higher rate for unattractive smiles and a lower rate for attractive smiles with 3D dentofacial images. The 3D dentofacial images were rated significantly lower than 2D photographs and the voting of most of the smile features showed significant negative main effect on VAS scores, while the effect of demographic characteristics of raters, voting on visible width of upper dentition and buccal corridor was not significant. In addition, a significant negative main effect of commissure and facial profile was found on the rating discrepancy between 2D and 3D images. Senior orthodontists tend to perceived 3D images more conservatively in smile evaluation. 3D dentofacial images were rated lower than 2D photographs and most of the smile features affect the aesthetic perception of smile. The perceptual difference of commissure and facial profile contributed to the lower ratings in 3D dentofacial images.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2D photographs and 3D dentofacial images as perceived by orthodontists and graduate students.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty-eight subjects finished orthodontic treatment were recruited with 2D photographs of frontal, oblique and lateral views as well as 3D dentofacial images. Twelve senior orthodontists and 13 postgraduate students were asked to rate the 2D and 3D smile simulations based on visual analog scale (VAS) and to vote for smile features that affect the attractiveness of smile. At the end, they completed a questionnaire about their views on different smile simulations. Wilcoxon signed-rank, Bland-Altman analysis, and multiple linear regression were used to compare the ratings and votes of smile perception between raters and between records.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Orthodontists and postgraduate students rated smile consistently with 2D photographs, while orthodontists tended to give a higher rate for unattractive smiles and a lower rate for attractive smiles with 3D dentofacial images. The 3D dentofacial images were rated significantly lower than 2D photographs and the voting of most of the smile features showed significant negative main effect on VAS scores, while the effect of demographic characteristics of raters, voting on visible width of upper dentition and buccal corridor was not significant. In addition, a significant negative main effect of commissure and facial profile was found on the rating discrepancy between 2D and 3D images.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Senior orthodontists tend to perceived 3D images more conservatively in smile evaluation. 3D dentofacial images were rated lower than 2D photographs and most of the smile features affect the aesthetic perception of smile. The perceptual difference of commissure and facial profile contributed to the lower ratings in 3D dentofacial images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36797718
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02798-2
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-02798-2
pmc: PMC9933254
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : NSF81970979
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Angle Orthod. 2018 May;88(3):329-337
pubmed: 29376732
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Mar 23;21(1):149
pubmed: 33757507
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Apr;159(4):e311-e320
pubmed: 33568274
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jun;127(6):911-917
pubmed: 33541817
Angle Orthod. 2020 May 1;90(3):397-404
pubmed: 33378431
Arch Oral Biol. 2016 Apr;64:11-8
pubmed: 26741999
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jan;123(1):20-26
pubmed: 31079881
J Prosthodont. 2020 Jul;29(6):466-471
pubmed: 32369876
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2018 Dec;51(6):1151-1167
pubmed: 30262166
J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Aug;149(8):680-687
pubmed: 29866363
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Dec;124(6):763-773
pubmed: 31982145
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Feb;123(2):314-321
pubmed: 31153615
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jun 19;18(1):113
pubmed: 29921251
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):4-12
pubmed: 12867893
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Dec;158(6):840-848
pubmed: 33256916
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Apr;123(4):557-563
pubmed: 31383524
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Aug;120(2):98-111
pubmed: 11500650
J Dent Sci. 2021 Jan;16(1):37-44
pubmed: 33384776
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Jun;157(6):773-782
pubmed: 32487307
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Jan;155(1):64-70
pubmed: 30591168
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Apr;123(4):564-570
pubmed: 31353112
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Sep;30(5):415-426
pubmed: 30144369
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Jan;63(1):65-72
pubmed: 19097956
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jul;138(1):84-8
pubmed: 20620838
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Oct;126(4):546-552
pubmed: 32981714
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Mar;43(3):226-37
pubmed: 26670682
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Sep;148(3):380-6
pubmed: 26321335
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;26(2):119-30
pubmed: 24148077
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2009 Jun;94(3):290-8
pubmed: 19303659
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Nov 12;29(6):416-423
pubmed: 28560842
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Feb 11;22(1):34
pubmed: 35148735
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Mar;127(3):392-397
pubmed: 33309214
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Nov;156(5):641-652
pubmed: 31677673
Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):448-55
pubmed: 26247104
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):3-8
pubmed: 30093121
J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Feb;75(2):169-76
pubmed: 8667276