•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Smile aesthetic perceptions could have different impact on orthodontic and prosthodontic treatment management and options to the patient. Objectives: To determine the laypersons’ smile aesthetic perceptions; irrespective of age and gender, of gummy smile and its treatment need and benefit on three different facial types. Methods: Smiling frontal photographs of a male and female subject were altered to simulate three facial types (brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial) with different levels of gummy smile increase from 2.0mm to 5.0mm. A total of 150 laypersons ranging from 18-45 years old were randomly approached to rate the photographs. Perceptions differences were assessed using visual analog scale for each group. Results: Repeated measure ANOVA was applied and showed that the mean level of attractiveness among three different facial types based on gummy smile levels was not statistically significant. This suggests that the facial type does not influence the laypersons’ ratings on gummy smile level. Further test found that the laypersons perceived 4.0mm gummy smile as borderline attractive while at 5.0mm is considered as unaesthetic. Chi Square test showed that there was statistically significant difference between the treatment need and attractiveness scoring (p=<0.01) whereby the treatment benefit is dependent on attractiveness ratings of gummy smile variables. Conclusion: Different levels of gingival show affect the laypersons’ perception of smile attractiveness, regardless of the facial type. The higher the level of gingival show, as seen in 4-5mm categories is perceived to be unattractive and thus, more likely to benefit from treatment.

References

  1. Kaya B, Uyar R. Influence on smile attractiveness of the smile arc in conjunction with gingival display. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(4):541-7.
  2. Dudea D, Lasserre JF, Alb C, Culic B, Ciutrila ISP, Calosi H. Patient’s perspective on dental aesthetics in a South-eastern Europe community. J Dent. 2012;40 Suppl 1:e72-81.
  3. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagrav ere MO, Major PW. Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod. 2004;31(3):204-9.
  4. Havens DC, McNamara JA, Sigler LM, Baccetti T. The role of the posed smile in overall facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(2):322-8.
  5. McLaren EA, Culp L. Smile Analysis. J Cosmetic Dent 2013;29(1):95-108.
  6. Pithon MM, Santos AM, Andrade CDVD, Santos EM, Couto FS, Coqueiro RDS. Perception of the esthetic impact of gingival smile on laypersons, dental professionals and dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Patho Oral Radio. 2013;115(4):448- 54.
  7. 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(2):141-51.
  8. Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M. The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(2):199-204.
  9. Willams RP, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo TG. Perceptions of midline deviations among different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:249-55.
  10. Pithon MM, Mata KRD, Rocha KS, Costa BDN, Neves F, Barbosa GCG, Coqueiro RDS. Perceptions of brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial individuals with regard to the buccal corridor in different facial types. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22(5):382-9.
  11. Chang CA, Fields Jr. HW, Beck FM. Smile esthetics from patients’ perspectives for faces of varying attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:71-80.
  12. Chou JC, Nelson A, Katwal D, Elathamna EN, Durski MT. Effect of smile index and incisal edge position on perception of attractiveness in different age groups. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(11):855-62.
  13. Flores-Mir C , Silva E , B arriga M I, L agrave`re MO, Major PW. Layperson’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod. 2004;31(3):204-09.
  14. Waeil B. The inf luence of the smile on the perceived facial type esthetics. BioMed Res Int 2018; 3562916
  15. Seixas MR, Costa-Pinto RA, Araujo TM. Checklist of esthetic features to consider in diagnosing and treating excessive gingival display (gummy smile). Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;16(2):131-57.
  16. Foley TF, Sandhu HS, Athanasopoulos C. Esthetic periodontal considerations in orthodontic treatment – Management of excessive gingival display. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69(6):368-72.
  17. Robbins JW. Differential diagnosis and treatment of excess gingival display. Prac Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11(2):265-72.
  18. Valverde-Montalva SH, Flores-Mir C, Rinchuse D, Arriola-Guillén LE. Influence of upper lip curvature on smile attractiveness in patients with different degrees of gingival smiles: A cross-sectional study with opinions from oral health providers and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159(4):321-9.
  19. Pithon MM, Nascimento CC, Barbosa GCG, Coqueiro RDS. Do dental esthetics have any influence on finding a job? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(4):423-9.
  20. Tanusetiawan S. Kusnoto J. Yusra Y. Hidayat, A. The differences between dentist’s and non-dentist’s perceptions on facial attractiveness. J Dent Indones. 2016;23:48-53.
  21. Pham TAV, Nguyen PA. Morphological features of smile attractiveness and related factors influence perception and gingival aesthetic parameters. Int Dent J. 2022;72(1):67-75.
  22. Waldrop TC. Gummy smiles: The challenge of gingival excess: Prevalence and guidelines for clinical management. SeminOrthod 2008;14(4):260-71.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.