Eduardo Mahn1, Camila S Sampaio2, Bruno Pereira da Silva3, Kyle Stanley4, Ana María Valdés5, Javiera Gutierrez6, Christian Coachman7. 1. Research Professor and Director of the Esthetic Dentistry Program, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 2. Research Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: csampaio@miuandes.cl. 3. Collaborator Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. 4. Adjunct Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. 5. Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 6. Professor, Esthetic Dentistry Program, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 7. Adjunct Professor, Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Smile analysis, as part of the overall facial analysis, is an important component of diagnosis and treatment planning in the esthetic rehabilitation of a patient. Most studies that refer to smile analysis are based on static images. A more comprehensive evaluation can be made with dynamic video images that can be stopped at the most appropriate frame to ensure the best static images for analysis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the posed and dynamic smiles of both sexes, considering the type of smile, prevalence of gingival display, dental display at rest, dentogingival display at posed and spontaneous smile, and lip mobility, through digital image acquisition (photographs and video clips) manipulated by using a software program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three photographs and 1 video clip were made for each of the 380 voluntary participants aged between 18 and 32 years by using an iPhone 6 iSight 8 MP camera, Moment lens, and artificial 5500 Kelvin light (IceLight). Digital files were evaluated by using a software program (Keynote), determining each point to be evaluated with posed and spontaneous smiles. RESULTS: With static images, 90% of women and 74% of men had gingival display, with only 35% of women and 21% of men having continuous gingival display. With dynamic analysis, these values increased to 100% of women and 95% of men having gingival display and 62% of men and 81% of women having a continuous gingival display (P<.05). The difference between dentogingival display during posed and spontaneous smiles was clear, with 68% of the participants having 2.25 mm more gingival display. Women tend to show slightly more dental display at rest, posed and spontaneous dentogingival display, as well as lip mobility, than men. CONCLUSIONS: The type of smile changes significantly when posed and spontaneous smiles are compared. Women generally show more gingiva and teeth in all the parameters evaluated than men. Dental treatments should be individually planned according to each patient's smile characteristics.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Smile analysis, as part of the overall facial analysis, is an important component of diagnosis and treatment planning in the esthetic rehabilitation of a patient. Most studies that refer to smile analysis are based on static images. A more comprehensive evaluation can be made with dynamic video images that can be stopped at the most appropriate frame to ensure the best static images for analysis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the posed and dynamic smiles of both sexes, considering the type of smile, prevalence of gingival display, dental display at rest, dentogingival display at posed and spontaneous smile, and lip mobility, through digital image acquisition (photographs and video clips) manipulated by using a software program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three photographs and 1 video clip were made for each of the 380 voluntary participants aged between 18 and 32 years by using an iPhone 6 iSight 8 MP camera, Moment lens, and artificial 5500 Kelvin light (IceLight). Digital files were evaluated by using a software program (Keynote), determining each point to be evaluated with posed and spontaneous smiles. RESULTS: With static images, 90% of women and 74% of men had gingival display, with only 35% of women and 21% of men having continuous gingival display. With dynamic analysis, these values increased to 100% of women and 95% of men having gingival display and 62% of men and 81% of women having a continuous gingival display (P<.05). The difference between dentogingival display during posed and spontaneous smiles was clear, with 68% of the participants having 2.25 mm more gingival display. Women tend to show slightly more dental display at rest, posed and spontaneous dentogingival display, as well as lip mobility, than men. CONCLUSIONS: The type of smile changes significantly when posed and spontaneous smiles are compared. Women generally show more gingiva and teeth in all the parameters evaluated than men. Dental treatments should be individually planned according to each patient's smile characteristics.