Smile esthetics: Impact of variations in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the maxillary lateral incisors

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the perception of trained dental professionals and laypersons toward the esthetic impact of variations in the vertical position, width, and gingival height of the maxillary lateral incisor. Materials and Methods: The present study analyzed the perspective of smile photographs by dental professionals such as “fifty orthodontics and fifty general dental practitioners (GDPs)” as well as fifty laypersons, consisting of an equal number of male and female participants. Photographs edited to depict alteration of golden proportion, incisal length, and gingival height of lateral incisor. SPSS software was used to analyze the data and determine the significant difference within all the participants, at 0.05% level (95% confidence interval). Results: There was no significant difference in ranking between the genders. Golden proportion of 62%–67% were ranked the highest by orthodontists, whereas GDPs and laypersons preferred 67%. Regarding gingival display, corrected height of −0.5 and −1 mm received highest ranking from all the three groups. In case of lateral incisal length, −0.5 mm was ranked highest by laypersons, in contrast to −1 mm by orthodontists and GDPs. Conclusion: Specific differences were observed in the ranking of smile esthetics by health-care professionals and laypersons. Golden proportion of 62% and 67% were ranked the highest by orthodontists, whereas GDPs and laypersons preferred 67%. Corrected gingival height of −0.5 and −1 mm received highest ranking from all the three groups. In case of lateral incisal length, −0.5 mm was ranked highest by laypersons, in contrast to −1 mm by orthodontists and GDPs.

Key words:

Gingival height - golden proportion - incisal length - lateral incisor - smile aesthetics

• REFERENCES

• 1 Shahid F, Alam MK, Khamis MF. Maxillary and mandibular anterior crown width/height ratio and its relation to various arch perimeters, arch length, and arch width groups. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 490-9
• 2 Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG. Dentists' preferences of anterior tooth proportion – A web-based study. J Prosthodont 2000; 9: 123-36
• 3 Soh J, Chew MT, Chan YH. Perceptions of dental esthetics of Asian orthodontists and laypersons. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2006; 130: 170-6
• 4 Springer NC, Chang C, Fields HW, Beck FM, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S. et al. Smile esthetics from the layperson's perspective. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2011; 139: e91-101
• 5 Raj V. Esthetic paradigms in the interdisciplinary management of maxillary anterior dentition–A review. J EsthetRestor Dent 2013; 25: 295-304
• 6 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; 139: 1318-27
• 7 Eslami N, Omidkhoda M, Shafaee H, Mozhdehifard M. Comparison of esthetics perception and satisfaction of facial profile among male adolescents and adults with different profiles. J OrthodSci 2016; 5: 47-51
• 8 Caramello F, Bittencourt MA, Machado AW. Influence of maxillary incisor level of exposure on the perception of dentofacial aesthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. J World FedOrthod 2015; 4: 108-13
• 9 Machado AW, McComb RW, Moon W, Gandini Jr. LG. Influence of the vertical position of maxillary central incisors on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. J EsthetRestor Dent 2013; 25: 392-401
• 10 Bukhary SM, Gill DS, Tredwin CJ, Moles DR. The influence of varying maxillary lateral incisor dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J 2007; 203: 687-93
• 11 Lombardi RE. The principles of visual perception and their clinical application to denture esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 29: 358-82
• 12 Kokich Jr. VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11: 311-24
• 13 Kokich V. Esthetics and anterior tooth position: An orthodontic perspective. part I: Crown length. J EsthetRestor Dent 1993; 5: 519-23
• 14 Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod 1999; 21: 517-22
• 15 Shaw WC, Lewis HG, Robertson NR. Perception of malocclusion. Br Dent J 1975; 138: 211-6
• 16 Machado AW, Moon W, Gandini Jr. LG. Influence of maxillary incisor edge asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2013; 143: 658-64
• 17 Abraham A, George J, Peter E, Philip K, Chankramath R, Johns DA. et al. Establishment of a new relationship between posed smile width and lower facial height: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 394-9
• 18 Alsulaimani FF, Batwa W. Incisors' proportions in smile esthetics. J OrthodSci 2013; 2: 109-12
• 19 Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2003; 124: 116-27
• 20 King KL, Evans CA, Viana G, BeGole E, Obrez A. Preferences for vertical position of the maxillary lateral incisors. World J Orthod 2008; 9: 147-54