OBJECTIVE: Smile esthetics has become a major concern among patients and orthodontists. Therefore, the aim of this study was: (1) To highlight differences in perception of smile esthetics by clinicians, orthodontists and laypeople; (2) To assess factors such as lip thickness, smile height, color gradation, tooth size and crowding, and which are associated with smile unpleasantness. METHODS: To this end, edited photographs emphasizing the lower third of the face of 41 subjects were assessed by three groups (orthodontists, laypeople and clinicians) who graded the smiles from 1 to 9, highlighting the markers that evince smile unpleasantness. Kruskall-Wallis test supplemented by Bonferroni test was used to assess differences among groups. Additionally, the prevailing factors in smile unpleasantness were also described. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P = 0.67) among groups rates. However, the groups highlighted different characteristics associated with smile unpleasantness. Orthodontists emphasized little gingival display, whereas laypeople emphasized disproportionate teeth and clinicians emphasized yellow teeth. CONCLUSION: Orthodontists, laypeople and clinicians similarly assess smile esthetics; however, noticing different characteristics. Thus, the orthodontist must be careful not to impose his own perception of smile esthetics.
OBJECTIVE:Smile esthetics has become a major concern among patients and orthodontists. Therefore, the aim of this study was: (1) To highlight differences in perception of smile esthetics by clinicians, orthodontists and laypeople; (2) To assess factors such as lip thickness, smile height, color gradation, tooth size and crowding, and which are associated with smile unpleasantness. METHODS: To this end, edited photographs emphasizing the lower third of the face of 41 subjects were assessed by three groups (orthodontists, laypeople and clinicians) who graded the smiles from 1 to 9, highlighting the markers that evince smile unpleasantness. Kruskall-Wallis test supplemented by Bonferroni test was used to assess differences among groups. Additionally, the prevailing factors in smile unpleasantness were also described. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P = 0.67) among groups rates. However, the groups highlighted different characteristics associated with smile unpleasantness. Orthodontists emphasized little gingival display, whereas laypeople emphasized disproportionate teeth and clinicians emphasized yellow teeth. CONCLUSION: Orthodontists, laypeople and clinicians similarly assess smile esthetics; however, noticing different characteristics. Thus, the orthodontist must be careful not to impose his own perception of smile esthetics.
Authors: Brian J Schabel; Lorenzo Franchi; Tiziano Baccetti; James A McNamara Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Nathan C Springer; Chan Chang; Henry W Fields; F Michael Beck; Allen R Firestone; Stephen Rosenstiel; James C Christensen Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Pieter Van der Geld; Paul Oosterveld; Jan Schols; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Sam Malkinson; Thomas C Waldrop; John C Gunsolley; Sharon K Lanning; Robert Sabatini Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 6.993