SavedAdd your journal

Journals / HRÜ Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği ve Oral Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Comparing the Effect of Dental Education on Aesthetic Perception in Different Educational Groups

Savaş Sağmak(Adiyaman University)0000-0002-0082-6297
Dilan Ayluçtarhan(ADIYAMAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9822-4739
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, clinical students demonstrated greater sensitivity to smile esthetic deviations than preclinical students.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Smile aesthetics plays a fundamental role in facial attractiveness and is an essential component of contemporary aesthetic dentistry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 344 first- to fifth-year dental students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, clinical students demonstrated greater sensitivity to smile esthetic deviations than preclinical students.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dental education · aesthetic perception · smile aesthetics

Abstract

Background: Smile aesthetics plays a fundamental role in facial attractiveness and is an essential component of contemporary aesthetic dentistry. Dental education is expected to improve students' ability to recognize subtle variations in smile aesthetics. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dental education level on the aesthetic perception of different smile characteristics among dental students. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 344 first- to fifth-year dental students. Standardized photographs of an aesthetically acceptable female smile were digitally modified using Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 to create variations in six aesthetic parameters: golden proportion, gingival display, maxillary central incisor length, dental midline deviation, midline diastema, and anterior crowding. Participants evaluated each image using a 6-point numerical rating scale (0= not aesthetically pleasing, 5= extremely aesthetically pleasing). First-, second-, and third-year students were classified as preclinical, whereas fourth- and fifth-year students were classified as clinical students for descriptive comparisons. Statistical analyses were primarily performed across the five academic years. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate, followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons. Results: Aesthetic perception tended to improve with increasing years of dental education. Statistically significant differences among the academic years were observed in the evaluation of maxillary central incisor length and midline diastema (p<0.05). Images with a 1-mm midline diastema received the lowest aesthetic scores across all groups. Overall, clinical students demonstrated greater sensitivity to smile esthetic deviations than preclinical students. Conclusions: Dental education positively influences the perception of smile aesthetics, with aesthetic sensitivity increasing throughout the educational process. Clinical experience appears to enhance students' ability to identify deviations in key aesthetic parameters. These findings may contribute to the improvement of aesthetic dentistry education and clinical decision-making.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sağmak, S., Ayluçtarhan, D. (2026). Comparing the Effect of Dental Education on Aesthetic Perception in Different Educational Groups. HRÜ Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği ve Oral Araştırmalar Dergisi, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1953963

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Ünal M, Paken G. Gülümseme estetiğinde parametreler: Derleme. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020;47(1-3):213-21.
  2. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Al-Mashraqi AA, Al-Homoud M, Wafi S, Zakari A, Mashali W. Perception of facial, dental, and smile esthetics by dental students. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Sep;30(5):415-26.
  3. Davis NC. Smile design. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(2):299-318.
  4. Thompson LA, Malmberg J, Goodell NK, Boring RL. The distribution of attention across a talker's face. Discourse Process. 2004; 38(1):145-68.
  5. Eli I, Bar-Tal Y, Kostovetzki I. At first glance: social meanings of dental appearance. J Public Health Dent. 2001 Summer;61(3):150-4.
  6. Arifağaoğlu Ö, Yılmaz U. Analysis of gingival display during static and dynamic smiles in a Turkish sample: A clinical study. European oral research (Online). 2022;56(1):23-7.
  7. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(2):141-51.
  8. Cowpe J, Plasschaert A, Harzer W, Vinkka-Puhakka H, Walmsley AD. Profile and competences for the graduating European dentist - update 2009. Eur J Dent Educ. 2010;14(4):193-202.
  9. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(5):759-65.
  10. Talic N, Alomar S, Almaidhan A. Perception of Saudi dentists and lay people to altered smile esthetics. Saudi Dent J. 2013;25(1):13-21.
  11. Passia N, Blatz M, Strub JR. Is the smile line a valid parameter for esthetic evaluation? A systematic literature review. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2011;6(3):314-27.
  12. Abu Alhaija ES, Al-Shamsi NO, Al-Khateeb S. Perceptions of Jordanian laypersons and dental professionals to altered smile aesthetics. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(4):450-6.
  13. Richards MR, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, Firestone AR, Walther DB, Rosenstiel S, Sacksteder JM. Contribution of malocclusion and female facial attractiveness to smile esthetics evaluated by eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(4):472-82.
  14. Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TM, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JR. Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):153-61.
  15. Al Taki A, Khalesi M, Shagmani M, Yahia I, Al Kaddah F. Perceptions of Altered Smile Esthetics: A Comparative Evaluation in Orthodontists, Dentists, and Laypersons. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:7815274.
  16. Tole N, Lajnert V, Kovacevic Pavicic D, Spalj S. Gender, age, and psychosocial context of the perception of facial esthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26(2):119-30.
  17. Newton JT, Prabhu N, Robinson PG. The impact of dental appearance on the appraisal of personal characteristics. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(4):429-34.
  18. Manipal S, Mohan CS, Kumar DL, Cholan PK, Ahmed A, Adusumilli P. The importance of dental aesthetics among dental students assessment of knowledge. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2014;4(1):48-51.
  19. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in measurement of pain - comparison between verbal rating scale and visual analog scale. Pain. 1975;1:379-84.
  20. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. Characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop.F 2008;133:515-23.
  21. Armalaite J, Jarutiene M, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A, Svalkauskiene V, Sidlauskas M, Skarbalius G. Smile aesthetics as perceived by dental students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):225.
  22. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:748-53.
  23. Omar H, Tai YT. Perception of smile esthetics among dental and nondental students. J Educ Ethics Dent. 2014;4:54-60.
  24. Machado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(4):136-57.
  25. Al Taki A, Hamdan AM, Mustafa Z, Hassan M, Abu-Alhuda S. Smile esthetics: Impact of variations in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the maxillary lateral incisors. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(4):514-20.
  26. Geron S, Atalia W. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):778-84.
  27. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(4):284-318.
  28. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24.
  29. Bhuvaneswaran M. Principles of smile design. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Oct;13(4):225-32.
  30. Fradeani M. Evaluation of dentolabial parameters as part of a comprehensive esthetic analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2006;1(1):62-9.
  31. Al-Saleh SA, Al-Shammery DA, Al-Shehri NA, Al-Madi EM. Awareness of Dental Esthetic Standards Among Dental Students and Professionals. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2019;11:373-82.