Perception of Smile Aesthetics of Patients with Anterior Malocclusions and Lips Influence: A Comparison of Dental Professionals’, Dental Students,’ and Laypersons’ Opinions

Perception of dental appearance and aesthetic analysis among patients, laypersons and dentists

BACKGROUND

Current concepts of beauty are increasingly subjective, influenced by the viewpoints of others. The aim of the study was to evaluate divergences in the perception of dental appearance and smile esthetics among patients, laypersons and dental practitioners. The study goals were to evaluate the influence of age, sex, education and dental specialty on the participants' judgment and to identify the values of different esthetic criteria. Patients sample included 50 patients who responded to a dental appearance questionnaire (DAQ). Two frontal photographs were taken, one during a smile and one with retracted lips. Laypersons and dentists were asked to evaluate both photographs using a Linear Scale from (0-10), where 0 represent (absolutely unaesthetic) and 10 represent (absolutely aesthetic). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test analysis were measured for each group. Most patients in the sample expressed satisfaction with most aspects of their smiles and dental appearance. Among laypersons (including 488 participants), 47 pictures "with lips" out of 50 had higher mean aesthetic scores compared to pictures "without lips". Among the dentist sample, 90 dentists' perception towards the esthetic smile and dental appearance for photos "with lips" and "without lips" were the same for 23 out of 50 patients. Perception of smile aesthetics differed between patients, laypersons and dentists. Several factors can contribute to shape the perception of smile aesthetic.

AIM

To compare the perception of dental aesthetic among patients, laypersons, and professional dentists, to evaluate the impact of age, sex, educational background, and income on the judgments made by laypersons, to assess the variations in experience, specialty, age, and sex on professional dentists' judgment, and to evaluate the role of lips, skin shade and tooth shade in different participants' judgments.

METHODS

Patients sample included 50 patients who responded to DAQ. Two frontal photographs were taken: one during a smile and one with retracted lips. Laypersons and dentists were asked to evaluate both photographs using a Linear Scale from (0-10), where 0 represent (absolutely unaesthetic) and 10 represent (absolutely aesthetic). One-way ANOVA and t-test analysis were measured for each group.

RESULTS

Most patients in the sample expressed satisfaction with most aspects of their smiles and dental appearance. Among laypersons (including 488 participants), 47 pictures "with lips" out of 50 had higher mean aesthetic scores compared to pictures "without lips". Whereas among the dentist sample, 90 dentists' perception towards the esthetic smile and dental appearance for photos "with lips" and "without lips" were the same for 23 out of 50 patients. Perception of smile aesthetics differed between patients, laypersons and dentists.

CONCLUSION

Several factors can contribute to shape the perception of smile aesthetic.

Influence of education level and gender of dental students on perception of dental aesthetics

BACKGROUND

Fulfilling aesthetic norms is an imperative of modern society. Accordingly, aesthetics has found its important role in dental medicine. The aim was to study whether there is a difference in the perception of tooth shade change and anatomical variations of anterior maxillary teeth among dental students depending on the level of education, gender, and experience in assisting in a dental office.

METHODS

The research was conducted among dental students via the Google Forms platform. Students evaluated the aesthetic acceptability of a smile on the unaltered, reference photograph (RP) and on the other 28 photographs in which the tooth shade (lighter and darker teeth), length (shortened central incisors, elongated, and beveled lateral incisors, elongated canines) and position (atypical and typical rotations and diastemas) of the upper maxillary teeth were altered by digital manipulation. The 1-10 assessment scale was used. Statistical analysis comprised one-way Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, X2 tests, t-test, and 3-way MANOVA.

RESULTS

In the research 208 students participated, 113 were preclinical students, 104 assisted in dental office and 175 were females. There were no significant effects of gender regarding length and position modifications (p > .05), while women were stricter in evaluation of lighter shade (p < .05). Clinical students were stricter in evaluating all manipulated photographs (MP) except those towards darker shade modifications, while assisting in a dental office or having a dentist in close family showed no significant effects (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

With a higher level of targeted academic education, dental students sharpen their ability to notice deviations from the aesthetic norms of a smile.

Upper lip characteristics and associated excessive gingival display etiologies in adults: Race and sex differences

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study aimed to examine upper lip (UL) and smile characteristics and soft tissue excessive gingival display (EGD) etiologies (hypermobile upper lip [HUL], altered passive eruption [APE], and short upper lip [SUL]) in a nondental adult population and to analyze interracial (Black and White) and intersex differences.

METHODS

Community participants, non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) and non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), were recruited and examined for UL vertical dimensions at rest and maximum smile and for HUL, APE, and SUL. Associations between gingival display (GD) or EGD and UL anatomical characteristics, HUL, APE, and SUL were analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants included 66 NHB and 65 NHW adults. Ergotrid height (greater among NHW; p = 0.019) averaged 14.0 mm. Upper lip vermilion length (ULVL), total UL length, internal lip length, total UL length during smile, and UL mobility averaged 8.6, 22.5, 23.1, 16.6, and 5.9 mm, respectively (all significantly greater in NHB; p ≤ 0.012). SUL prevalence was 4.6%, found only among NHW. Lip length change from rest to smile (LLC) averaged 26.2% (significantly greater in females; p = 0.003). HUL prevalence was 10.7% (NHB 13.1%, NHW 3.5%; p = 0.024). NHB had significantly greater GD (p ≤ 0.017). EGD and APE prevalence (6.9% for both) showed significant interracial and intersex differences (p ≤ 0.014). Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that LLC and HUL were the most consistently significant EGD determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

UL anatomical and functional characteristics and soft tissue-related EGD etiologies exhibit significant interracial and intersex differences, with UL mobility/hypermobility being the most consistently significant determinant of GD.

The Attitude and Perception of Dental and Medical Interns Toward Dental Smile Enhancing Treatments

Background:

Perception of beauty is different from one individual to another, and this may influence their desire for aesthetic treatment. There are many studies that compared dentists to the general population’s perception of smile treatments. However, only a few studies were carried out to compare the perception of fresh graduate dentists with a comparable group of another medical medical background.

Objective:

This study aimed to compare how medical and dental interns perceive dental smiles and how much they ask for dental enhancement treatments.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study targeting dental and medical interns in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia using an online survey. An online questionnaire was formulated and distributed through social media. Comparisons between groups were made using the Chi-square test with a p-value of significance kept under 0.05.

Results:

204 participants responded to the survey, 107 dental and 97 medical interns (52.5%, 47.5%), respectively. When the participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with their smiles, almost 60% of the dental interns rated their smiles 8/10 or more on a scale of (1-10). When they were asked about the cause of the dissatisfaction, their responses were varying. About 84% of dental interns reported having complications of varying sources because of the smile-enhancing treatment, compared to only 50% of the medical interns.

Conclusion:

Dental and medical interns interacted in the same manner toward smile-enhancing treatments. Dental interns seem to show more satisfaction with their smiles. They also showed more ability to spot and identify the harmful effects of those procedures.