PURPOSE: This study compared: 1) the subjective analyses of a smile done by specialists with advanced training and by general dentists; 2) the subjective analysis of a smile, or that associated with the face, by specialists with advanced training and general dentists; 3) subjective analysis using a computerized analysis of the smile by specialists with advanced training, verifying the midline, labial line, smile line, the line between commissures and the golden proportion. METHODS: The sample consisted of 100 adults with natural dentition; 200 photographs were taken (100 of the smile and 100 of the entire face). Computerized analysis using AutoCAD software was performed, together with the subjective analyses of 2 groups of professionals (3 general dentists and 3 specialists with advanced training), using the following assessment factors: the midline, labial line, smile line, line between the commissures and the golden proportion. The smile itself and the smile associated with the entire face were recorded as being agreeable or not agreeable by the professionals. RESULTS: The McNemar test showed a highly significant difference (p=0.0000) among the subjective analyses performed by specialists compared to general dentists. Between the 2 groups of dental professionals, there were highly significant differences (p=0.0000) found between the subjective analyses of the smile and that of the face. The McNemar test showed statistical differences in all factors assessed, with the exception of the midline (p=0.1951), when the computerized analysis and subjective analysis of the specialists were compared. In order to establish harmony of the smile, it was not possible to establish a greater or lesser relevance among the factors analyzed.
PURPOSE: This study compared: 1) the subjective analyses of a smile done by specialists with advanced training and by general dentists; 2) the subjective analysis of a smile, or that associated with the face, by specialists with advanced training and general dentists; 3) subjective analysis using a computerized analysis of the smile by specialists with advanced training, verifying the midline, labial line, smile line, the line between commissures and the golden proportion. METHODS: The sample consisted of 100 adults with natural dentition; 200 photographs were taken (100 of the smile and 100 of the entire face). Computerized analysis using AutoCAD software was performed, together with the subjective analyses of 2 groups of professionals (3 general dentists and 3 specialists with advanced training), using the following assessment factors: the midline, labial line, smile line, line between the commissures and the golden proportion. The smile itself and the smile associated with the entire face were recorded as being agreeable or not agreeable by the professionals. RESULTS: The McNemar test showed a highly significant difference (p=0.0000) among the subjective analyses performed by specialists compared to general dentists. Between the 2 groups of dental professionals, there were highly significant differences (p=0.0000) found between the subjective analyses of the smile and that of the face. The McNemar test showed statistical differences in all factors assessed, with the exception of the midline (p=0.1951), when the computerized analysis and subjective analysis of the specialists were compared. In order to establish harmony of the smile, it was not possible to establish a greater or lesser relevance among the factors analyzed.