Smile Perception Through Different Eyes: Esthetic Preferences of Prosthodontics, Senior Dental Students and Laypersons

Sadık Hıkmet Ulucam; Ecem Sancar; Ozlem Orman

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1684275

EN

Smile Perception Through Different Eyes: Esthetic Preferences of Prosthodontics, Senior Dental Students and Laypersons

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate whether changes in the visibility of the lower incisors, the angulation of the incisors and lower lip harmony, amount of buccal corridor, upper gingival visibility, and the depth of the embrasure create differences in aesthetic perception among prosthodontists, senior dental students, and laypersons. Material and Methods: Standardized frontal and intraoral photographs of a male and female model were digitally modified to reflect different aesthetic variations. A 13-question online survey was conducted with 148 prosthodontists, 245 senior dentistry students, and 147 laypersons, who selected the most aesthetically pleasing images. The responses were analyzed using statistical methods including Likelihood Ratio Test, Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact Test, Continuity Corrected Chi-Square Test, and McNemar Test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was applied. Results: Prosthodontists demonstrated the highest accuracy in evaluating aesthetic parameters. Female model images were perceived as more aesthetically correct than male model images. High lower incisor visibility was considered unaesthetic by all groups, while buccal corridor width changes had minimal impact. Reverse incisor inclination and lower lip misalignment were deemed unattractive. Normal upper gingival display was preferred for females, while no consensus was found for males. Altered lower incisor visibility by cosmetic treatment applied to upper incisors improved aesthetic perception in both genders. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of integrating scientific criteria with subjective perception in smile design. Personalized treatment approaches considering gender differences and patient expectations can optimize aesthetic outcomes. The findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in aesthetic and prosthetic dentistry.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Not applicable

Project Number

D-KA19/15

Ethical Statement

Dear Editor, The submitted study is a survey-based research conducted in 2019. During the planning phase, a project proposal was prepared and approved by the relevant research committee. However, at the time the study was conducted, ethical approval was not mandatory for survey-based studies. Therefore, the committee did not impose any requirement or take action regarding ethics approval.

Thanks

Not applicable

References

1. Geduk S, Sahin O, Velioglu N. Comparison of subjective esthetic perceptions of dentists with different gender and clinical experiences with objective dentolabial esthetic measurements. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2020; 23(3):209-220.
2. Chang CA, Fields HW, Beck FM, Springer NC, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S, Christensen JC. Smile esthetics from patients’ perspectives for faces of varying attractiveness. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2011;140(4):171-180.
3. Nordholm LA. Beautiful patients are good patients: evidence for the physical attractiveness stereotype in first impressions of patients. Soc Sci Med 1980;14A(1):81-83.
4. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2000;126(3):390-423.
5. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR. The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 1985;87(1):21-26.
6. Fradeani M. Evaluation of dentolabial parameters as part of a comprehensive esthetic analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent 2006;1(1):62-69.
7. Matthews TG. The anatomy of a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39(2):128-134.
8. Newton JT, Prabhu N, Robinson PG. The impact of dental appearance on the appraisal of personal characteristics. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(4):429-434.

9. Carlsson GE, Johansson A, Johansson AK, Ordell S, Ekbäck G, Unell L. Attitudes toward Dental Appearance in 50‐ and 60‐Year‐Old Subjects Living in Sweden. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2008 25;20(1):46-55.
10. Scoble HO, White SN. Compound complex curves: the authentic geometry of esthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(6):448-454.
11. Dawson PE. Determining the determinants of occlusion. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1983;3(6):8-21.
12. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57(2):132-144
13. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120(2):98–111.
14. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(2):116-127.
15. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63(3):183-189.
16. Kokich VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11(6):311-324.
17. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51(1):24-28.
18. Pisulkar S, Agrawal R, Belkhode V, Nimonkar S, Borle A, Godbole S. Perception of buccal corridor space on smile aesthetics among specialty dentist and layperson. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2019;9(5):499-504.
19. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127(2):208-213.
20. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):628-633.
21. Ritter DE, Gandini LG, Pinto ADS, Locks A. Esthetic influence of negative space in the buccal corridor during smiling. Angle Orthod 2006;76(2):198-203.
22. Morley J. A multidisciplinary approach to complex aesthetic restoration with diagnostic planning. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 2000;12(6):575-577.
23. Morley J, Eubank J. Macroesthetic elements of smile design. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132(1):39-45.
24. Foulger TE, Tredwin CJ, Gill DS, Moles DR. The influence of varying maxillary incisal edge embrasure space and interproximal contact area dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J 2010; 14;209(3):E4.
25. Albino JE, Tedesco LA, Conny DJ. Patient perceptions of dental-facial esthetics: shared concerns in orthodontics and prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52(1):9-13.
26. Pogrel MA. What are normal esthetic values? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49(9):963-969.
27. Schmidt CJ, Tatum SA. Cosmetic dentistry. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;14(4):254-259.
28. Bhuvaneswaran M. Principles of smile design. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):225-232.
29. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod 1992;62(2):91-100.
30. Vig RG, Brundo GC. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39(5):502-504.
31. Roden-Johnson D, Gallerano R, English J. The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005;127(3):343-350.
32. Gracco A, Cozzani M, D’Elia L, Manfrini M, Peverada C, Siciliani G. The smile buccal corridors: aesthetic value for dentists and laypersons. Prog Orthod 2006;7(1):56-65.
33. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod 2006;76(4):557-563.
34. Owens EG, Goodacre CJ, Loh PL, Hanke G, Okamura M, Jo KH, Muñoz CA, Naylor WP. A multicenter interracial study of facial appearance. Part 2: A comparison of intraoral parameters. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(3):283-288.
35. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63(3):183-189
36. Allen EP. Use of mucogingival surgical procedures to enhance esthetics. Dent Clin North Am 1988;32(2):307-330.
37. Rosa M, Olimpo A, Fastuca R, Caprioglio A. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypeople to altered dental esthetics in cases with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. Prog Orthod 2013;14:34.
38. 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):759-765.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Prosthodontics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Sadık Hıkmet Ulucam
0000-0002-6688-5943
Cyprus

Ecem Sancar ^*
0000-0002-2235-4681
Türkiye

Ozlem Orman
0000-0002-2866-1308
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 29, 2025

Submission Date

April 26, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 5, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1684275

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA74RW47HA

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Ulucam SH, Sancar E, Orman O (December 1, 2025) Smile Perception Through Different Eyes: Esthetic Preferences of Prosthodontics, Senior Dental Students and Laypersons. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 4 483–496.

Öz

Smile Perception Through Different Eyes: Esthetic Preferences of Prosthodontics, Senior Dental Students and Laypersons

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite