OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the attractiveness of a smile according to variations from esthetic norms, photographic framing, and the order of the presentation of photographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A photograph of an individual was selected and digitally manipulated to create the following smiles: an ideal control smile (I), a smile with diastema (D1), a smile with midline deviation (LM3), a smile with deviation from the long axes of the lateral incisors (10D), and a smile with an inverted smile arc (LSRV). The manipulated photographs were developed in framings of the face and of the mouth and evaluated by 20 laypeople. For half the evaluators, the presentation started with facial photographs and, for the other half, the presentation began with the mouth shots. Evaluators were asked to rank the photographs from the least to the most attractive; then, each photograph was awarded a mark (scale of 0.0 to 10.0). RESULTS: In both presentations, the smiles I, LM3, 10D, and LSRV received favorable ratings, whereas the D1 smile got poor ratings. The photographic framings used (face vs mouth) and the order of presentation of the photographs did not influence the rankings. CONCLUSION: The absence of variations from beauty norms of a smile has a positive impact on its esthetic perception, but variations from the norms do not necessarily result in reduced attractiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the attractiveness of a smile according to variations from esthetic norms, photographic framing, and the order of the presentation of photographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A photograph of an individual was selected and digitally manipulated to create the following smiles: an ideal control smile (I), a smile with diastema (D1), a smile with midline deviation (LM3), a smile with deviation from the long axes of the lateral incisors (10D), and a smile with an inverted smile arc (LSRV). The manipulated photographs were developed in framings of the face and of the mouth and evaluated by 20 laypeople. For half the evaluators, the presentation started with facial photographs and, for the other half, the presentation began with the mouth shots. Evaluators were asked to rank the photographs from the least to the most attractive; then, each photograph was awarded a mark (scale of 0.0 to 10.0). RESULTS: In both presentations, the smiles I, LM3, 10D, and LSRV received favorable ratings, whereas the D1 smile got poor ratings. The photographic framings used (face vs mouth) and the order of presentation of the photographs did not influence the rankings. CONCLUSION: The absence of variations from beauty norms of a smile has a positive impact on its esthetic perception, but variations from the norms do not necessarily result in reduced attractiveness.
Authors: Pedro Lima Emmerich Oliveira; Andrea Fonseca Jardim da Motta; Clarice Julia Guerra; José Nelson Mucha Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2015 Mar-Apr