| Literature DB >> 35720813 |
Dibyendu Majumder1, Mithra N Hegde2, Shishir Singh3, Ashu Gupta4, Shashi Rashmi Acharya5, P Karunakar6, R S Mohan Kumar7, B Mrinalini8, Shazeena Qaiser9, Urvashi Bhimjibhai Sodvadia10, Honap Manjiri Nagesh11.
Abstract
Objective: The research for analyzing the smile characteristics in the Indian population has been limited with contradictory outcomes. This consensus statement aims to critically review the literature and provide basic practice guidelines on dental aesthetics related to the Indian population. Clinical Considerations: 9 clinicians and 6 resource persons from dental colleges in India collaborated in this consensus statement which covered 6 topics along with 6 introductory and 6 conclusive remarks. The statement was developed through a colloquium conducted on topics; global aesthetics: different smile design proportions and guidelines, patient perspective towards aesthetic dentistry in India, a literature survey of aesthetic dentistry for the Indian population, macro and micro-aesthetics, multidisciplinary approach in aesthetic dentistry, inclusion of high-end technologies in Indian modern-day practice, followed by a panel discussion to devise and establish the practice guidelines of aesthetic dentistry in India. The Consensus Statement has been formulated according to AGREE Reporting checklist.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines; Indians; esthetic dentistry; esthetic principles; macro-esthetic; micro-esthetics; patient perspective
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720813 PMCID: PMC9205356 DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_32_22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Conserv Dent ISSN: 0972-0707
Different smile design proportions in dental esthetics
| Smile design proportions | Description | Proposed by |
|---|---|---|
| Golden proportion | Each anterior tooth is 60% the breadth of the neighboring tooth when viewed from the front. (the mathematical ratio being 1.6:1:0.6) | Lombardi, 1973[ |
| Intercanine width in golden proportion to commissural width | Rufenacht cr. 1990 | |
| Golden rectangle of central incisors | Height of the central incisor/width of the two central incisors 1.6/1 | Dr. Stephen Marquardt, 1988 |
| Golden percentage | The proportional width of each tooth should be: canine 10%, lateral 15%, central 25%, central 25%, lateral 15%, and canine 10% of the total distance across the anterior segment | Snow, 1999[ |
| Golden standard | The width of an anterior tooth should be 80% of its height | Wolfart |
| Preston proportion | Width of maxillary lateral incisor=66% width of central Incisor, width of canine=84% width of lateral incisor | Preston, 1993[ |
| RED proportion | The proportion of the successive width of the teeth remaining constant when progressing distally from the midline | Ward, 2001[ |
| M proportions | Compares the tooth width with the facial width using a software | Methot, 2006[ |
| Chu’s esthetic gauges | Range and mean distribution frequency of individual tooth width of the maxillary anterior dentition (based on Levin’s RED concept) | Chu, 2007[ |
| Calculation of width of anterior teeth Segment based on several anatomical measurements | Interzygomatic width/3.3=intercanine width | House and loop, 1937 |
| DDC (distance between distal surfaces of maxillary canines)=1.305×IAD (IAD, measured in digital photographs) | Gomes | |
| TR proportion | Mesiodistal width of canine/sum of mesiodistal width of anterior teeth=0.3 | Shyagali |
RED: Recurring esthetic dental, TR: Tarulatha-Ruchi proportion, IAD: Interalar distance, DDC: Distance between distal surfaces of maxillary canines
Literature survey of esthetic dentistry for the Indian population
| Authors, year | Geographic population | Sample size | Age group (years) | Parameters evaluated | Study type | Method | Data analysis | Results | Bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| George and Bhat 2010[ | South India | 300 | 18-26 | To evaluate | Cross-sectional | Manually; with a digital vernier caliper | ICD and CIW are in golden proportion | Gender (female >male) | |
| Grover | North India | 100 | 18-25 | To analyze | Cross-sectional | Standardized photographic procedure; digimizer image analysis software | Descriptive, spearman correlation test | The majority of individuals had an incisal plane and interpupillary line parallelism>half of the students had their facial midline and arch midline coincide | Small sample size limited to one age group |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Balani | Central India | 100 | 13-16 | To establish static norms for smile parameters: | Cross-sectional | Standardized photographic procedure; adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 software | Unpaired | Sexual dimorphism is seen; low-smile lines are primarily a male trait (2.5:1; Male: Female), and high-smile lines are primarily a female trait (2:1; Female: Male) | Selection (small sample size, limited to one age group) |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Nichani | South India (Bangalore) | 100 | 20-25 | To define shapes of maxillary central incisors and evaluate their relationship with the visual appearance of interdental papillae while smiling | Cross-sectional | Digital photography | - | Women showed a higher percentage of papillary display compared with men | Small age range |
| Ganji | Saudi, Indian, and Bangladesh | 114 | 20-30 | To measure the gingival zenith width in convex, concave, and straight face profiles quantitatively | Cross-sectional | GZP on the maxillary upper right and left central incisors evaluated on scanned dental plaster model using CBCT | One-way ANOVA test | When comparing GZP in different facial profiles, a statistically significant difference was found | Gender (only on male population) |
| Sethna | South- western (Mumbai) | 150 | 18-25 | Objective smile analysis based on gingival visibility during natural smile and posed smile | Cross-sectional | Standardized photographic procedure | Natural smile | Gender (female >male) | |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Manipal | South (Chennai) | 100 | 18-27 | To determine awareness of dental esthetics in dental students | Questionnaire survey | 19 questions with five aspects: Physical, functional, social, knowledge, and psychological | Chi-square test | Physical: Pigmentation shows more significance; students seek treatment for their pigmentation of the lips and gums | Selection (limited to one city) |
| Vinita 2020[ | South (Chennai) | 462 | 15-35 | To evaluate the knowledge and awareness of teeth whitening among young adults | Questionnaire survey | Self-administered questionnaire | Chi-square test | 73.4% of participants were affirmed that they knew about teeth whitening | Selection (limited to one city) |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Kuckreja | North | 117 | 18-24 | To measure the tooth colors in the North Indian population | - | With a digital colorimeter, VITA Easyshade®advance 4.0. | - | The most common shade in the cervical third was 1M2, followed by 1M1 in the middle third and 2M1 in the incisal third | (Small sample size, limited to one age group) |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Meshramkar | South (Dharwad, Karnataka) | 214 | 18-25 | To find out how common the ‘golden proportion and recurring esthetic dental proportion’ are in people with attractive smiles | Cross-sectional | Digital photography and digital analysis | - | The RED proportion was present in 6.6% of the population as opposed to the golden proportion which was found in 0.6% of the population | Age group |
| Agrawal | West India (Gujarat) | 80 | 20-23 | To examine the existence of the golden proportion, RED proportion, and a golden percentage between the frontal view widths of the maxillary anterior natural teeth in Indian pupils | Cross-sectional | Digital photography and software | - | The golden proportion and RED proportion were not observed in the natural smiles of subjects who were deemed to have an esthetic smile | The small range of age group |
| Shetty | Indian population (in UK) | 100 | 18-35 | Analyze anterior tooth dimensions, proportions, and relationships | Cross-sectional | Stone casts and vernier caliper | A paired and independent- sample | Significant differences in length of upper left central incisor and upper right and left canines between male and female subjects ( | Not representative of all Indian people living in the UK, let alone elsewhere in the world |
| Lavanya | South (Telangana) | 60 | 18-30 | To determine which proportional formula (golden proportion, golden mean, and the preston proportion) exists in the local population | Cross-sectional | Plaster casts and digital vernier calipers | ANOVA | The formula of golden proportion and golden mean had no statistical differences between males and females - and is recommended during esthetic rehabilitation. However, the preston proportion has shown statistical differences in the total population | |
| Singh | North India | 70 | - | To investigate the existence of this ratio among individuals with natural dentition and to validate its role in esthetic oral rehabilitation | Cross-sectional | - | Eighty percent of the subjects varied within 2 standard deviations of the ratio of 1.618 | Small sample size | |
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Mehndiratta | South India (Belagavi) | 200 | 18-30 | To identify the relationship between the shape of the face and the different types of MCI | Descriptive | Photography and AutoCAD |
| The most prevalent tooth form in both men and women was ovoid, and the least prevalent was square | South Indian population |
| Koralakunte and Budihal 2012[ | South India (Davangere) | 200 | 18-28 | To evaluate the relationship between the shape of the MCI incisor tooth and the shape of the face | Descriptive | Photography |
| No highly defined correlation between maxillary central incisor tooth form and face form | Female bias 121 versus 79 |
MIE: Maxillary incisor exposure, RED: Recurring esthetic dental, MCI: Maxillary central incisors, CAD: Computer-aided design, GZP: Gingival Zenith Position, CBCT: Cone Beam Computed Tomography, ICD: Inner Canthal Width, CIW: Width of maxillary central Incisor, VBM: Vertical Bisected Midline