Does different vertical position of maxillary central incisors in women with different facial vertical height affect smile esthetics perception?
Esthetics
Facial height
Maxillary incisor
Smile
Vertical position
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2023
07 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
12
04
2023
accepted:
24
06
2023
medline:
8
8
2023
pubmed:
7
8
2023
entrez:
6
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists, prosthodontists and laypersons with regard to different vertical positions of the maxillary central incisors related to lateral incisors for different facial vertical height cases. Frontal full-face photographs showing social smiles of three adult women aged between 18 and 25 years were used. Vertical position of the maxillary central incisor was changed (intruded or extruded) with 0.5 mm increments according to the reference gingival line resulting five images for each woman in a full-face view yielding a total of 15 images. A visual analog scale was placed below each smile to allow the raters to evaluate the attractiveness of each smile independently. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a difference between more than two independent groups in terms of quantitative variables. Comparisons of more than two dependent groups were examined with repeated measures one-way ANOVA. The significance level was taken as 0.05 for all analyses. For increased facial vertical height, the highest scores for orthodontists were given to the 0.5 mm extruded (64.18 ± 26.36), for prosthodontists to the control (57.28 ± 19.80), and for layperson to the 1 mm extruded (61.27 ± 25.98) central incisor position. For decreased facial vertical height, the highest scores were obtained at the 0.5 mm intrusion with an increasing pattern from orthodontists to laypersons (63.95 ± 22.08 for orthodontists, 79.87 ± 21.43 for prosthodontists, and 79.88 ± 19.17 for laypersons). All three rater groups gave the highest scores to the 0 mm (control) smile design for normal facial vertical height. When these scores were compared among the groups, laypersons gave significantly higher scores compared to orthodontists (p < 0.001) and prosthodontists (p = 0.005). The facial vertical height significantly affected the perception of smile esthetics. Keeping the distance between the central and lateral incisors longer than 1 mm in individuals with increased facial height may be important in terms of increasing patient satisfaction in terms of clinical aesthetics. On the contrary, keeping the distance between the central and lateral incisors shorter than 1 mm may create a more esthetically acceptable result in individuals with short facial height.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to assess the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists, prosthodontists and laypersons with regard to different vertical positions of the maxillary central incisors related to lateral incisors for different facial vertical height cases.
SUBJECT AND METHODS
METHODS
Frontal full-face photographs showing social smiles of three adult women aged between 18 and 25 years were used. Vertical position of the maxillary central incisor was changed (intruded or extruded) with 0.5 mm increments according to the reference gingival line resulting five images for each woman in a full-face view yielding a total of 15 images. A visual analog scale was placed below each smile to allow the raters to evaluate the attractiveness of each smile independently. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a difference between more than two independent groups in terms of quantitative variables. Comparisons of more than two dependent groups were examined with repeated measures one-way ANOVA. The significance level was taken as 0.05 for all analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For increased facial vertical height, the highest scores for orthodontists were given to the 0.5 mm extruded (64.18 ± 26.36), for prosthodontists to the control (57.28 ± 19.80), and for layperson to the 1 mm extruded (61.27 ± 25.98) central incisor position. For decreased facial vertical height, the highest scores were obtained at the 0.5 mm intrusion with an increasing pattern from orthodontists to laypersons (63.95 ± 22.08 for orthodontists, 79.87 ± 21.43 for prosthodontists, and 79.88 ± 19.17 for laypersons). All three rater groups gave the highest scores to the 0 mm (control) smile design for normal facial vertical height. When these scores were compared among the groups, laypersons gave significantly higher scores compared to orthodontists (p < 0.001) and prosthodontists (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The facial vertical height significantly affected the perception of smile esthetics. Keeping the distance between the central and lateral incisors longer than 1 mm in individuals with increased facial height may be important in terms of increasing patient satisfaction in terms of clinical aesthetics. On the contrary, keeping the distance between the central and lateral incisors shorter than 1 mm may create a more esthetically acceptable result in individuals with short facial height.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37544965
doi: 10.1186/s40510-023-00479-y
pii: 10.1186/s40510-023-00479-y
pmc: PMC10404574
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):141-51
pubmed: 16905057
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Apr;159(4):e311-e320
pubmed: 33568274
J Orthod Sci. 2016 Apr-Jun;5(2):47-51
pubmed: 27127750
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct;139(10):1318-27
pubmed: 18832267
Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Jan-Feb;20(1):40-4
pubmed: 25741823
Dent Clin North Am. 2015 Jul;59(3):689-702
pubmed: 26140975
Br Dent J. 2007 Dec 22;203(12):687-93
pubmed: 18084214
J Clin Orthod. 1983 Jun;17(6):380-92
pubmed: 6577022
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Aug;25(4):274-82
pubmed: 23910186
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Aug;160(2):283-291
pubmed: 34006423
Angle Orthod. 2004 Feb;74(1):43-50
pubmed: 15038490
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Sep;148(3):380-6
pubmed: 26321335
Angle Orthod. 2014 May;84(3):486-91
pubmed: 24160996
World J Orthod. 2008 Summer;9(2):147-54
pubmed: 18575309
Eur J Orthod. 2005 Aug;27(4):349-54
pubmed: 15961569
J Clin Orthod. 1995 May;29(5):302-11
pubmed: 8617853
J Dent. 1991 Apr;19(2):130-1
pubmed: 2050893
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Oct;25(5):295-304
pubmed: 24148978
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 May;143(5):658-64
pubmed: 23631967
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Aug;120(2):98-111
pubmed: 11500650
Am J Orthod. 1984 Mar;85(3):217-23
pubmed: 6608274
J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24
pubmed: 10825866
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Sep;150(3):425-35
pubmed: 27585770
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Feb;29(1):68-78
pubmed: 27767236
Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 Mar-Apr;22(2):95-105
pubmed: 28658361
Angle Orthod. 2006 Jul;76(4):557-63
pubmed: 16808559
Int J Dent. 2016;2016:7815274
pubmed: 27774105
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Dec;25(6):392-401
pubmed: 24180675