COMPARISON OF SUBJECTIVE ESTHETIC PERCEPTIONS OF DENTISTS WITH DIFFERENT GENDER AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES WITH OBJECTIVE DENTOLABIAL ESTHETIC MEASUREMENTS

Şükriye Geduk; Onur Şahin; Neslin Velioğlu

doi:10.7126/cumudj.694342

EN

COMPARISON OF SUBJECTIVE ESTHETIC PERCEPTIONS OF DENTISTS WITH DIFFERENT GENDER AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES WITH OBJECTIVE DENTOLABIAL ESTHETIC MEASUREMENTS

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is evaluate the consistency of certain measurable dentolabial criteria between the esthetic values accepted in the literature and the subjective opinions of physicians. Materials and Methods: Four associated professors and four research assistants in the field of Prosthodontics were selected as the examiners of the study. Smile photos taken from 200 volunteer participants with only the mouth region were examined. The results of measurement of the curvature of the incisal edge and lower lip parallelism, incisal edge and lower lip contact, laugh line, buccal corridor and interincisal line and midline variables and subjective assessments of the evaluators were compared with Cochran Q test. Results: Esthetic perception is subjective and there was a significant correlation between objective measurements and subjective perception in the incisal edge and lower lip parallelism, laugh line and buccal corridor variables. No statistically significant difference was found between male and female individuals, similarly between specialists and research assistants. Conclusion: There is no consensus between esthetically objective findings and subjective views.

Keywords

References

1. Tarantili VV, Halazonetis DJ, Spyropoulos MN. The spontaneous smile in dynamic motion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:8-15.
2. Ekrem O, Yavuz İ, Yıldız O. Gülümseme estetiğinin değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Ataturk Uni Dent 2018;28:583-591.
3. Gochman DS. The measurement and development of dentally relevant motives. J Public Health Dent 1975;35:160-164.
4. Goldstein RE. Study of need for esthetics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1969;21:589-598.
5. Mandalı G, Biçer AZY, Bulut Z, Konakçı DB. Anterior bölgede estetik yaklaşımlar: olgu sunumu. Journal of Ataturk Uni Dent 2011;80-85.
6. Goldstein RE. Esthetics in Dentistry: 2nd ed. London:Decker;1998.
7. Levine JB, Finkel S. Esthetic Diagnosis: A Three-Step Analysis. Smile Design Integrating Esthetics and Function: Essentials in Esthetic Dentistry. 2016;2:1-42.
8. Garber DA, Salama MA. The esthetic smile: diagnosis and treatment. Periodontol 2000 1996;11:18-28.

9. Gill DS, Naini FB, Tredwin CJ. Smile esthetics. Dent Update 2007;34:152-4, 7-8.
10. Fradeani M, Barducci G. Esthetic rehabilitation in fixed prosthodontics. New Orleans: Quintessence Publishing Company; 2008.
11. Moorrees C.F.A., Kean MR. Natural head position, a basic consideration in the interpretation of cephalometric radiographs. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol June 1958, 16: 213–234.
12. Gillen RJ, Schwartz RS, Hilton TJ, Evans DB. An analysis of selected normative tooth proportions. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:410-417.
13. Ash MM. Wheeler's atlas of tooth form. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Saunders: Elsevier; 1984, 158 p.
14. Hasanreisoglu U, Berksun S, Aras K, Arslan I. An analysis of maxillary anterior teeth: facial and dental proportions. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:530-538.
15. Iscan MY, Kedici PS. Sexual variation in bucco-lingual dimensions in Turkish dentition. Forensic Sci Int 2003;137:160-164.
16. Lavelle CL. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 1972;61:29-37.
17. Magne P, Belser U. Bonded porcelain restorations in the anterior dentition: a biomimetic approach. Geneva: Quintessence; 2002.
18. Nomura S, Freitas KMS, Silva P, Valarelli FP, Cançado RH, Freitas MR, et al. Evaluation of the attractiveness of different gingival zeniths in smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod 2018;23:47-57.
19. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. Characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:515-523.
20. Chang CA et al. Smile esthetics from patients' perspectives for faces of varying attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:171-180.
21. Abu Alhaija ES, Al-Shamsi NO, Al-Khateeb S. Perceptions of Jordanian laypersons and dental professionals to altered smile esthetics. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:450-456.
22. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person's perception of smile esthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004;31:204-209.
23. Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:514-525.
24. Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA, Jr. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2002;72:72-80.
25. Başaran G, Veli İ, Genç C, Özer T, Arslan SG. Bukkal koridorların gülümseme estetiğine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Turk J Orthod 2011;24:47-56.
26. Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:1-7.
27. Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:208-217.
28. Cavalcanti SM, Guerra SMG, Valentim FB, Rosetti EP. Esthetic perception of smiles with different gingival conditions. Gen Dent 2019;67:66-70.
29. Basting RT, da Trindade Rde C, Florio FM. Comparative study of smile analysis by subjective and computerized methods. Oper Dent 2006;31:652-659.
30. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:141-151.
31. Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M. Subjective and objective perception of upper incisors. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:489-495.
32. 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;139:1318-1327.
33. Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF. The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007;10:15-21.
34. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:24-28.
35. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:98-111.
36. Springer NC, Chang C, Fields HW, Beck FM, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S, et al. Smile esthetics from the layperson's perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:91-101.
37. Sharma PK, Sharma P, editors. Dental smile esthetics: the assessment and creation of the ideal smile. Seminars in orthodontics 2012;18:193-201.
38. Miller CJ. The smile line as a guide to anterior esthetics. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:157-164.
39. Bhatia S, Kohli S, Tandon P, Agarwal A. Smile line and facial esthetics. Indian J Dent Res 2011;29 :117-120.
40. Kokich VO, Jr., Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-324.
41. Machado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19:136-157.
42. Ritter DE, Gandini LG, Pinto Ados S, Locks A. Esthetic influence of negative space in the buccal corridor during smiling. Angle Orthod 2006;76:198-203.
43. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57:132-144.
44. 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;127:343-350.
45. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:208-213.
46. Ioi H, Kang S, Shimomura T, Kim SS, Park SB, Son WS, et al. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese and Korean orthodontists and orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:459-465.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Şükriye Geduk
0000-0003-2569-8428
Türkiye

Onur Şahin ^*
0000-0002-8018-6946
Türkiye

Neslin Velioğlu
0000-0003-0210-3348
Türkiye

Publication Date

October 5, 2020

Submission Date

February 25, 2020

Acceptance Date

August 9, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 23 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.694342

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA29FX98EM

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Geduk Ş, Şahin O, Velioğlu N (October 1, 2020) COMPARISON OF SUBJECTIVE ESTHETIC PERCEPTIONS OF DENTISTS WITH DIFFERENT GENDER AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES WITH OBJECTIVE DENTOLABIAL ESTHETIC MEASUREMENTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 23 3 209–220.

Cited By

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

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

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

Öz

COMPARISON OF SUBJECTIVE ESTHETIC PERCEPTIONS OF DENTISTS WITH DIFFERENT GENDER AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES WITH OBJECTIVE DENTOLABIAL ESTHETIC MEASUREMENTS

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

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