SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 195-200, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-155
License : (CC BY 4.0)
Published Online: 15-August-2021
Aims: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the lay perception of the effect of the buccal corridor and amount of toothgingival display on the attractiveness of a smile in different facial types.
Materials and methods: Using Adobe Photoshop CS3 software, frontal facial images of two smiling Iranian female subjects (one short-faced and one long-faced) were altered to create different magnitudes of buccal corridor display (5, 10, 15, 20 and 25%) and tooth-gingival display (2 mm central incisor show, 6 mm central incisor show, total central incisor show, total tooth show with 2 mm gingival show and total tooth show with 4 mm gingival show). Sixty Iranians (30 males and 30 females) rated the attractiveness of the pictures on a 1–5 point scale.
Results: Narrower smiles were preferred in long-faced subjects compared with short-faced subjects. Minimal tooth show was more attractive than excessive gingival display in short-faced subjects. There were no gender specific, statistically significant differences found in the ratings given by the lay assessors.
Conclusions: Harmonious geometry of the smile and face in both the vertical and transverse dimensions influences smile attractiveness and this should be considered in orthodontic treatment planning.
1. Kiyak HA. Does orthodontic treatment affect patients’ quality of life? J Dent Educ 2008;72:886-94.
2. Thomas JL, Hayes C, Zawaideh S. The effect of axial midline angulation on dental esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:359-64.
3. Proffit WR. The soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a new view for a new century. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:46-9.
4. 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.
5. 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;126:390-423.
6. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR. The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 1985;87:21-6.
7. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57:132-44
8. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-24.
9. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63:183-9; discussion 190.
10. Frush JP, Fisher RD. The dynesthetic interpretation of the dentogenic concept. J Prosthet Dent 1958;8:558-81.
11. 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;142:459-65.
12. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:208-13; quiz 261.
13. Ackerman MB. Buccal smile corridors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:528-9; author reply 529.
14. Oumeish OY. The cultural and philosophical concepts of cosmetics in beauty and art through the medical history of mankind. Clin Dermatol 2001;19:375-86.
15. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
16. Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TM, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JR. Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 2011;81:153-61.
17. 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.
18. Zange SE, Ramos AL, Cuoghi OA, de Mendonça MR, Suguino R. Perceptions of laypersons and orthodontists regarding the buccal corridor in long- and short-face individuals. Angle Orthod 2011;81:86-90.
19. Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983;16:87-101.
20. Duncan GH, Bushnell MC, Lavigne GJ. Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain. Pain 1989;37:295-303.
21. Paul-Dauphin A, Guillemin F, Virion JM, Briançon S. Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:1117-27.