| Literature DB >> 35067765 |
Gil Guilherme Gasparello1, Sergio Luiz Mota Júnior2, Giovani Ceron Hartmann1, Thiago Martins Meira1, Elisa Souza Camargo3, Matheus Melo Pithon4, Orlando Tanaka5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smile esthetics has a strong influence on perception, attractiveness, and personal characteristics. It is unknown how malocclusions may influence the appearance of the individual's smile. This study aimed to investigate whether malocclusion affects the visual perception of esthetics, age, employability, honesty, intelligence and to meet its obligation in time in middle-aged adults. Facial frontal smiling photographs of a male and a female middle-aged adult with 3 different malocclusions were shown to and evaluated by 90 laypeople (non-dentists), divided into groups: young adults (14-44 years), middle-aged adults (45-59 years), and elders (over 60 years). The index of treatment need (IOTN) was used, and IOTN 1, 5, and 8 images were created in Photoshop using the male and female photographs. In total, 6 photographs were evaluated, 3 areas of interest (AOI)-eyes, nose, and mouth-were created for statistical comparison. The Ogama and Eye Tribe tracker were used in conjunction to measure eye tracking. A visual analog scale (VAS) was employed with a questionnaire surveying individuals' perception of age, employability, honesty, intelligence, and ability to meet obligations. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson's-chi-squared, and Pearson correlation test were applied.Entities:
Keywords: Age perception; Eye-tracking; IOTN; Job; Visual perception
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35067765 PMCID: PMC8784583 DOI: 10.1186/s40510-022-00399-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Orthod ISSN: 1723-7785 Impact factor: 3.247
Fig. 1IOTN’s male and female (A, D). IOTN grades 1 (attractive without treatment), (B, E). 5 (reasonable, with diastemas and teeth not aligned and leveled); (C, F). 8 (non-attractive, with severe crowding)
Comparison using A. Kruskal–Wallis B. ANOVA
| Mean male (SD) | Mean female (SD) | Different IOTN | Age range | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sig | Sig | |||
| A. Complete fixation time on eye (ms) | 611.08 (472.73) | 990.03 (1004.31) | 0.945 | 0.313 |
| A. Complete fixation time on nose (ms) | 840.32 (844.73) | 972.94 (984.53) | 0.701 | 0.670 |
| A. Complete fixation time on mouth (ms) | 1267.95 (1009.02) | 1372.00 (928.11) | 0.058 | 0.373 |
| A. Time until first fixation on eye (ms) | 2633.86 (1205.20) | 1460.43 (1245.45 | 0.861 | 0.905 |
| A. Time until first fixation on nose (ms) | 1909.35 (1574.39) | 1332.84 (1455.16) | 0.192 | 0.588 |
| A. Time until first fixation on mouth (ms) | 999.48 (1252.68) | 956.32 (1227.89) | 0.159 | 0.185 |
| B. VAS | 46.32 (28.56) | 41.99 (30.38) | 0.000 | 0.524 |
Statistical difference p < 0.05
Participants: n = 90
ms miliseconds, SD standard deviation
Fig. 2Cross-tabulation comparing A mean VAS and IOTN; B mean VAS and age range; C Hiring and age range; D Age perception and IOTN; E Intelligence and age range; F Honesty and age range; G Obligations in time and age range. Statistical difference p < 0.005. Different letters = Statistical difference
Cross-tabulation and Pearson’s chi-square value
| IOTN 1 male | IOTN 5 male | IOTN 8 male | IOTN 1 female | IOTN 5 female | IOTN 8 female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 86a | 56b | 43b | 81a | 40b | 39b | 0.000 |
| No | 4a | 34b | 47b | 9a | 50b | 51b | |
| Yes | 33a | 17a,b | 13b | 62c | 13b | 15b | 0.000 |
| No | 57a | 73a,b | 77b | 28c | 77b | 75b | |
| Yes | 67a | 31b,c,d | 28d | 48c | 28b,d | 25b,d | 0.000 |
| No | 23a | 59b,c,d | 62d | 42c | 62b,d | 65b,d | |
| Yes | 42a,b | 30a,b | 28a,b | 47b | 40a,b | 25a | 0.003 |
| No | 48a,b | 60a,b | 62a,b | 43b | 50a,b | 65a |
Statistical difference p < 0.05
Participants 90
Pearson correlation
| Pearson correlation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age perception and VAS | − 0.254 | 0.0001 |
| Age perception and age range | 0.041 | 0.341 |
Statistical difference p < 0.05
Participants: n = 90
Cross-tabulation regarding education background and hiring %
| Yes | No | Pearson Chi-squared | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | College graduate | % Hiring | 45.5 | 57.9 | 0.027 |
| Not graduate | % Hiring | 54.5 | 42.1 |
Comparing sex with t-test
| Complete fixation time on eye | 0.060 |
| Complete fixation time on nose | 0.534 |
| Complete fixation time on mouth | 0.436 |
| Time until first fixation on eye | 0.434 |
| Time until first fixation on nose | 0.098 |
| Time until first fixation on mouth | 0.800 |
| VAS | 0.088 |
| Age range | 0.713 |
| Would you consider hiring this person? | 0.135 |
| Would you judge this person intelligent? | 0.321 |
| Would you judge this person honest? | 0.604 |
| Does this person appear to meet obligations on time? | 0.413 |
| Age perception | 0.203 |
Statistical difference p < 0.05
Participants: n = 90