Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(01): 013-019
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714040
Original Article

Perception of Dentofacial Aesthetics in School Children and Their Parents

Alisa Tiro
1   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
,
Enita Nakas
1   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
,
Amra Arslanagic
2   Department of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
,
Nina Markovic
2   Department of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
,
Vildana Dzemidzic
1   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this research was to examine the attitudes and perceptions of dentofacial aesthetics among different age groups.

Materials and Methods The sample consisted of elementary-school students from the city of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their parents. This study included 314 subjects: 157 children and 157 parents. The children’s group consisted of 85 (54.14%) males and 72 (45.85%) females, aged 9 to 15 years.

Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to determine frequency distribution and percentages for all variables. A chi-squared (x 2) test was used to determine the association between variables and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all the differences and associations.

Results For the dentofacial appearance with no teeth irregularity or with severe teeth irregularity, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) (post-hoc tests—Tukey’s HSD) indicated that the difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.06) relative to rank matching between all three subject groups.

For dentofacial appearance with mild teeth irregularity, an ANOVA (post-hoc tests—Tukey’s HSD) showed statistical difference (p = 0.07) between the teenage group of subjects relative to pre-teenage group of subjects and adult group of subjects.

Conclusion Attitudes about desirable and acceptable dental aesthetics differ in younger children compared with older children and parents. Ten years old children find good function with poor aesthetics more pleasing, while 14 years old children find aesthetics with bad function as more pleasing.

Keywords

dentofacial aesthetics - perception - children - adults


Publication History

Article published online:
29 July 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Wheeler L, Kim Y. What is beautiful is culturally good: the physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivistic cultures. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1997; 23 (08) 795-800
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Fortini A, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Children’s perceptions of smile esthetics and their influence on social judgment. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (06) 1050-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lukez A, Pavlic A, Trinajstic Zrinski M, Spalj S. The unique contribution of elements of smile aesthetics to psychosocial well-being. J Oral Rehabil 2015; 42 (04) 275-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fleming PS, Proczek K, DiBiase AT. I want braces: factors motivating patients and their parents to seek orthodontic treatment. Community Dent Health 2008; 25 (03) 166-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lin F, Ren M, Yao L, He Y, Guo J, Ye Q. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150 (03) 476-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mandall NA, McCord JF, Blinkhorn AS, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD. Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14-15-year-old Asian and Caucasian children in greater Manchester. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22 (02) 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Khan M, Fida M. Assessment of psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2008; 18 (09) 559-564
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Willis J, Todorov A. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol Sci 2006; 17 (07) 592-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Al-Bitar ZB, Al-Omari IK, Sonbol HN, Al-Ahmad HT, Cunningham SJ. Bullying among Jordanian schoolchildren, its effects on school performance, and the contribution of general physical and dentofacial features. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144 (06) 872-878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Martins-Júnior PA, Marques LS, Ramos-Jorge ML. Malocclusion: social, functional and emotional influence on children. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 37 (01) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev 1995; 66 (03) 710-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bashour M. History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (03) 741-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Türkkahraman H, Gökalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004; 74 (05) 640-647
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 1994; 368 (6468) 239-242
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Little AC, Roberts CS. Evolution, appearance, and occupational success. Evol Psychol 2012; 10 (05) 782-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Child IL, Iwao S. Personality and esthetic sensitivity: extension of findings to younger age and to different culture. J Pers Soc Psychol 1968; 8 (03) 308-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ayyildiz E, Tan E, Keklik H, Demirtag Z, Celebi AA, Pithon MM. Esthetic impact of gingival plastic surgery from the dentistry students’ perspective. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (03) 397-402
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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 (02) 119-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stenvik A, Espeland L, Berset GP, Eriksen HM. Attitudes to malocclusion among 18- and 35-year-old Norwegians. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 24 (06) 390-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Espeland LV, Stenvik A. Perception of personal dental appearance in young adults: relationship between occlusion, awareness, and satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100 (03) 234-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zheng B, Muhammed FK, An N. et al. Comparison of perceptions on the dental aesthetics of different malocclusions between orthodontists and schoolchildren. Saudi Med J 2018; 39 (09) 946-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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 (04) 514-520
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Foster TD, Grundy MC. Occlusal changes from primary to permanent dentitions. Br J Orthod 1986; 13 (04) 187-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Akinboboye B, Umesi D, Ajayi Y. Transcultural perception of maxillary midline diastema. Int J Esthet Dent 2015; 10 (04) 610-617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kolawole KA, Otuyemi OD, Jeboda SO, Umweni AA. Awareness of malocclusion and desire for orthodontic treatment in 11 to 14 year-old Nigerian schoolchildren and their parents. Aust Orthod J 2008; 24 (01) 21-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Friedrich LK, Stein AH. Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1973; 38 (04) 1-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Burrows D. Mass media campaigns: worthwhile or wasted resources. ConneXions (Cupertino Calif) 1988; 8 (04) 14-16
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Collins E, Zoch L. Targeting the young, the poor, the less educated: thinking beyond traditional media. Public Relat Rev 2001; 27 (02) 197-212
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lukež A, Katić V, Lauš I, Grbeša M, Špalj S. Frequency, context and characteristics of smile used in advertising. Acta Stomatol Croat 2017; 51 (01) 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Theobald AH, Wong BK, Quick AN, Thomson WM. The impact of the popular media on cosmetic dentistry. N Z Dent J 2006; 102 (03) 58-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Oakley M, Spallek H. Social media in dental education: a call for research and action. J Dent Educ 2012; 76 (03) 279-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yin L, Jiang M, Chen W, Smales RJ, Wang Q, Tang L. Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (06) 750-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Oliveira MD, Silveira BL, Mattos CT, Marquezan M. Facial profile esthetic preferences: perception in two Brazilian states. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20 (03) 88-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bronfman CN, Janson G, Pinzan A, Rocha TL. Cephalometric norms and esthetic profile preference for the Japanese: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20 (06) 43-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dalaie K, Behnaz M, Khodabakhshi Z, Hosseinpour S. Impact of malocclusion severity on oral health-related quality of life in an Iranian young adult population. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 129-135
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Preoteasa CT, Ionescu E, Preoteasa E. Risks and complications associated with orthodontic treatment. Chapter 18. In Bourzgui F. ed. Orthodontics—Basic Aspects and Clinical Considerations. 2012. In. Tec; Europe: p 420
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Lau PY, Wong RWK. Risks and complications in orthodontic treatment. Hong Kong Dent Journal. 2006; 3 (01) 15-22
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Freitas AO, Marquezan M, Nojima MdaC, Alviano DS, Maia LC. The influence of orthodontic fixed appliances on the oral microbiota: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (02) 46-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kerosuo HM, Dahl JE. Adverse patient reactions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132 (06) 789-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wellings K, Macdowell W. Evaluating mass media approaches to health promotion: a review of methods. Health Educ 2000; 100 (01) 23-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar