Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2017 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2

Smile Attractiveness: Differences among the Perceptions of Dental Professionals and Laypersons

Sayfa
50–55
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Thus, 3 mm of gingival display and buccal corridor width larger than 16% should be avoided for esthetic reasons during dental treatment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the acceptable values of female and male smile attractiveness based on different amounts of gingival display and buccal corridor widths, as judged by dental professionals and laypersons.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Overall, 249 evaluators in four groups (Group 1=orthodontists, Group 2=prosthodontists, Group 3=oral surgeons, and Group 4=laypersons) evaluated 28 images of different smiles with a visual analogue scale.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Thus, 3 mm of gingival display and buccal corridor width larger than 16% should be avoided for esthetic reasons during dental treatment.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the acceptable values of female and male smile attractiveness based on different amounts of gingival display and buccal corridor widths, as judged by dental professionals and laypersons. Methods: The frontal smile photographs of a male and female model were modified to create seven different smile photographs of the same individual with different amounts of gingival display and buccal corridor widths. Overall, 249 evaluators in four groups (Group 1=orthodontists, Group 2=prosthodontists, Group 3=oral surgeons, and Group 4=laypersons) evaluated 28 images of different smiles with a visual analogue scale. Significant statistical differences were found among the evaluator's scores (p<0.05).Results: For female smiles, the highest scores were obtained for 12% and 0% buccal corridor width. For male smiles, the highest scores were obtained for 4%, 0%, 12%, and 16% buccal corridor width for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The highest scores were obtained for +2 mm and -3 mm of gingival display for female smiles. Conclusion: The amount of gingival display, the buccal corridor width, and the knowledge in the field affects the perceptions of smile attractiveness. Thus, 3 mm of gingival display and buccal corridor width larger than 16% should be avoided for esthetic reasons during dental treatment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZ, A. A., AKDENİZ, B. S., CANLI, E., ÇELİK, S. (2017). Smile Attractiveness: Differences among the Perceptions of Dental Professionals and Laypersons. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2, 50–55. https://ajindex.com/articles/374991

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod 2007
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Kaya B, Uyar R. Influence on smile attractiveness of the smile arc in conjunction with gingival display. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. Elsevier/Mosby, St. Louis(MO) 2013: 168. 5. Ker AJ, Chan R, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson's perspective: a computer-based survey study. J Am Dent Assoc 2008
  5. [CrossRef] 6. Proffit WR, Raymond P, White Jr, Sarver DM. Diagnostic and treatment planning approaches. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity. Mosby, St. Louis(MO) 2002: 102. 7. 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
  6. [CrossRef] 8. Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF. The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007
  7. [CrossRef] 9. Gul-e-Erum, Fida M. Changes in smile parameters as perceived by orthodontists, dentists, artists, and laypeople. World J Orthod 2008
  8. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese. Angle Orthod 2009
  9. [CrossRef] 11. McNamara L, McNamara JA Jr., Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard- and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008
  10. [CrossRef] 12. Roden-Johnson D, Gallerano R, English J. The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005
  11. [CrossRef] 13. 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
  12. Rodrigues Cde D, Magnani R, Machado MS, Oliveira OB. The perception of smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 2009
  13. [CrossRef] 15. Shyagali TR, Chandralekha B, Bhayya DP, Kumar S, Balasubramanyam G. Are ratings of dentofacial attract