Effect of the ethnic, profession, gender, and social background on the perception of upper dental midline deviations in smile esthetics by Chinese and Black raters.
Layperson
Likert scale
Midline coincidence
Orthodontist
Smile
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 04 2023
14 04 2023
Historique:
received:
20
09
2022
accepted:
16
03
2023
medline:
18
4
2023
entrez:
14
4
2023
pubmed:
15
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the perception of upper dental midline deviation on the attractiveness of a smile among raters from different ethnicities, professions, genders, and ages and measure to what extent the presence or absence of the associated smiling structures influence the raters' evaluations. A male subject (26 years of age) with adequate smile characteristics was selected by 3 experienced orthodontists, and 561 raters from 2 different ethnic groups (281 Chinese raters and 280 Black raters) rated the subject's smile after the subject's upper dental midline was digitally altered from 0 to 5 mm using a 5-point Likert scale on 12 smile photographs divided into two groups: group 1, in the presence of smile related structures, two-thirds of the nose, lips, and chin (NLC), and group 2, in the absence of smile related structures, the lips only (L). There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two ethnicities, in 2 mm and 4 mm in-group NLC and 5 mm in-group L, as well as the raters' profession to each midline shift of both groups (NLC) and (L) for both ethnicities except for 0 mm. Regarding the role of associated smile structures, the smile photos were observed in the presence of smile-associated structures, and in its absence (NLC × L), statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found when the deviation was 5 mm among the Chinese raters; in 1 mm, and 4 mm among the Black raters. Among different genders, statistical differences were only reported (p < 0.05) for Chinese raters for 5 mm in NLC, while statistical differences were observed for 2 mm and 3 mm in NLC for Black raters. For age categories, differences were observed (p < 0.05) for 4 mm, 5 mm in NLC and 4 mm, and 5 mm in L for Chinese raters, while 5 mm in NLC and 1 mm in L for Black raters. Perception of the upper dental midline deviations was influenced by the factors of ethnicity, profession, presence or absence of smile-associated structures, as well as the gender and age of the raters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to compare the perception of upper dental midline deviation on the attractiveness of a smile among raters from different ethnicities, professions, genders, and ages and measure to what extent the presence or absence of the associated smiling structures influence the raters' evaluations.
METHODS
A male subject (26 years of age) with adequate smile characteristics was selected by 3 experienced orthodontists, and 561 raters from 2 different ethnic groups (281 Chinese raters and 280 Black raters) rated the subject's smile after the subject's upper dental midline was digitally altered from 0 to 5 mm using a 5-point Likert scale on 12 smile photographs divided into two groups: group 1, in the presence of smile related structures, two-thirds of the nose, lips, and chin (NLC), and group 2, in the absence of smile related structures, the lips only (L).
RESULTS
There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two ethnicities, in 2 mm and 4 mm in-group NLC and 5 mm in-group L, as well as the raters' profession to each midline shift of both groups (NLC) and (L) for both ethnicities except for 0 mm. Regarding the role of associated smile structures, the smile photos were observed in the presence of smile-associated structures, and in its absence (NLC × L), statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found when the deviation was 5 mm among the Chinese raters; in 1 mm, and 4 mm among the Black raters. Among different genders, statistical differences were only reported (p < 0.05) for Chinese raters for 5 mm in NLC, while statistical differences were observed for 2 mm and 3 mm in NLC for Black raters. For age categories, differences were observed (p < 0.05) for 4 mm, 5 mm in NLC and 4 mm, and 5 mm in L for Chinese raters, while 5 mm in NLC and 1 mm in L for Black raters.
CONCLUSION
Perception of the upper dental midline deviations was influenced by the factors of ethnicity, profession, presence or absence of smile-associated structures, as well as the gender and age of the raters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37060002
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02893-4
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-02893-4
pmc: PMC10105468
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
214Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Aust Orthod J. 2008 Nov;24(2):91-5
pubmed: 19113072
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 07;18(24):
pubmed: 34948515
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019 Mar;29(3):210-213
pubmed: 30823943
BDJ Open. 2020 Sep 14;6:16
pubmed: 33014424
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2021 May 07;13:163-172
pubmed: 33994813
J Dent Res. 2019 Nov;98(12):1294-1304
pubmed: 31633462
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Mar 4;101(9):e28660
pubmed: 35244035
Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):515-20
pubmed: 20050746
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019 Nov 11;10(1):85-95
pubmed: 32181225
BDJ Open. 2020 May 05;6:6
pubmed: 32411387
Prog Orthod. 2017 Dec;18(1):8
pubmed: 28317085
Angle Orthod. 2022 Jan 1;92(1):101-109
pubmed: 34520516
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Mar;30(2):119-125
pubmed: 29171154
Saudi Dent J. 2013 Jan;25(1):13-21
pubmed: 23960550
Turk J Orthod. 2016 Sep;29(3):59-68
pubmed: 30112476
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Dec;144(6):793-801
pubmed: 24286903
J Dent Sci. 2021 Jan;16(1):431-436
pubmed: 33384831
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Dec 22;18(1):225
pubmed: 30577772
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Jan;139(1):e91-e101
pubmed: 21195262
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):748-53
pubmed: 18068592
Dent Update. 2014 Jul-Aug;41(6):483-6, 488-9
pubmed: 25195479
J Investig Clin Dent. 2017 Nov;8(4):
pubmed: 27590143
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct;139(10):1318-27
pubmed: 18832267
Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):198-205
pubmed: 21208069
Angle Orthod. 2017 Jan;87(1):96-103
pubmed: 27366816
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Oct;142(4):459-65
pubmed: 22999668
Saudi Dent J. 2016 Oct;28(4):174-182
pubmed: 27872548
Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Nov-Dec;21(6):51-57
pubmed: 28125140
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Sep;30(5):415-426
pubmed: 30144369
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Feb;145(2):249-55
pubmed: 24485740
J Orthod. 2021 Jun;48(2):135-143
pubmed: 33546571
Eur J Orthod. 2011 Aug;33(4):450-6
pubmed: 21041837
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Oct;146(4):423-9
pubmed: 25263144
Korean J Orthod. 2014 Nov;44(6):294-303
pubmed: 25473645
Angle Orthod. 2011 Jan;81(1):153-61
pubmed: 20936969
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Feb 6;20(1):42
pubmed: 32028948
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Oct 14;101(41):e30983
pubmed: 36254087
J Orthod Sci. 2019 Aug 08;8:14
pubmed: 31497573
Angle Orthod. 2007 Sep;77(5):759-65
pubmed: 17685777