•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the smile esthetics of individuals and the factors affecting it using the smile esthetic index (SEI) and compare them with the patient’s perception of smile. Methods: Seventy-six patients consisting of 44 females and 32 males who presented to for routine periodontal treatments were included in study. The smile esthetics were evaluated by three researchers on the photographs taken from the patients. The visual analog scala was used for the subjective evaluation of smile esthetics. Results: According to the results obtained from the study, the average of the SEI total scores was 6.38; the mean subjective evaluation of smile aesthetics was 6.33. There was no statistically significant difference depending on gender and age in the subjective and objective evaluations of the patients’ smile aesthetics. A statistically significant correlation was found between the physician’s scoring for objective smile aesthetics and the age of the patients. Conclusion: The SEI is an index that can be applied in the clinic and is used to evaluate the smile esthetics revealing objective values. Different esthetical outcomes may occur with objective and subjective evaluation.The use of these indices for diagnosis and treatment planning will allow for developing appropriate treatments.

References

1. Patzer GL. The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Springer; 2012.

2. Aydınyurt HS, Bilgili E. Evaluation of the smile esthetic index of patients in Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Dentistry. Van Med J. 2018;25(3):360-6.

3. Goldstein RE. Study of need for esthetics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1969; 21(6):589-98.

4. Ahrari F, Heravi F, Rashed R, Zarrabi MJ, Setayesh Y. Which factors affect dental esthetics and smile attractiveness in orthodontically treated patients? J Dent (Tehran). 2015; 12(7):491-503.

5. Nevin JB, Keim R. Social psychology of facial appearance. In: Nanda R, editor. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics. Elsevier; 2005. pp. 94-109.

6. Schabel BJ, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. Q-sort assessment vs visual analog scale in the evaluation of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(4 Suppl):S61-71.

7. Garber DA, Salama MA. The aesthetic smile: Diagnosis and treatment. Periodontol 2000. 1996; 11:18-28.

8. Witt M, Flores-Mir C. Laypeople’s preferences regarding frontal dentofacial esthetics: Periodontal factors. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142(8):925-37.

9. Batra P, Daing A, Azam I, Miglani R, Bhardwaj A. Impact of altered gingival characteristics on smile esthetics: Laypersons’ perspectives by Q sort methodology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154(1):82-90.e2.

10. 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(4):515-23.

11. Singh H, Maurya RK, Kapoor P, Sharma P, Srivastava D. Subjective and objective evaluation of frontal smile esthetics in patients with facial asymmetry-a comparative cross-sectional study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017; 20(1):8-20.

12. Nayak UA, Winnier J, S R. The relationship of dental aesthetic index with dental appearance, smile and desire for orthodontic correction. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009; 2(2):6-12.

13. Parashar P, Paliwal A, Parekh V, Shingala A, Patel S, Shah J. A complete analysis of quality of life measure and esthetic component in Indore population. J Int Oral Health. 2015; 7(10):77-81.

14. McNamara L, McNamara JA Jr, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard- and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(4):491-9.

15. Rotundo R, Nieri M, Bonaccini D, Mori M, Lamberti E, Massironi D, Giachetti L, Franchi L, Venezia P, Cavalcanti R, Bondi E, Farneti M, Pinchi V, Buti J. The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI): A method to measure the esthetics of the smile. An intra-rater and inter-rater agreement study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015; 8(4):397-403.

16. Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M. General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19(5):449-54.

17. Rotundo R, Nieri M, Lamberti E, Covani U, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Factors influencing the aesthetics of smile: An observational study on clinical assessment and patient’s perception. J Clin Periodontol. 2021; 48(11):1449-57.

18. Faure-Brac M, Antezack A, Melloul S, Hadj Saïd M, Raskin A, Monnet-Corti V. Smile aesthetic evaluation on videographs: An intra-rater and inter-rater agreement study. Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(5):87.

19. Al Fawzan A. Reasons for seeking orthodontic treatment in Qassim region: A pilot study. Int Dent J Stud Res. 2013; 1(3):58-62.

20. Rotundo R, Genzano L, Nieri M, Covani U, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery. Odontology. 2021; 109(1):295-302.

21. Katiyar S, Gandhi S, Sodawala J, Anita G, Hamdani S, Jain S. Influence of symmetric and asymmetric alterations of maxillary canine gingival margin on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists, dentists, and laypersons. Indian J Dent Res. 2016; 27(6):586-91.

22. 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(3):343-50.

23. da Silva Barros EC, de Carvalho MDO, Mello KCFR, Botelho P, Normando D. he ability of orthodontists and laypeople in the perception of gradual reduction of dentogingival exposure while smiling. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012; 17(5):81-6.

24. 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.

25. Othman SA, Low M. Perception of repaired cleft lip aesthetics among professionals, laypersons and patients with cleft using three-dimensional images. J Int Dent Med Res. 2021; 14(2):704-9.

26. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod. 2004; 31(3):204-9; discussion 201.

27. De-Marchi LM, Pini NI, Pascotto RC. The relationship between smile attractiveness and esthetic parameters of patients with lateral agenesis treated with tooth recontouring or implants. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2012; 4:43-9.

28. Sr iphadung por n C, Cham nan nidiad ha N. Perception of smile esthetics by laypeople of different ages. Prog Orthod. 2017; 18(1):8.

29. Pithon MM, Bastos GW, Miranda NS, Sampaio T, Ribeiro TP, Nascimento LE, Coqueiro Rda S. Esthetic perception of black spaces between maxillary central incisors by different age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143(3):371- 5.

30. Lira Dos Santos EJ, Dantas AMX, Vilela RM, de Lima KJRS, Beltrão RTS. The inf luence of varying maxillary central incisor vertical dimension on perceived smile aesthetics. J Orthod. 2019; 46(2):137-42.

31. Carlsson GE, Wagner IV, Odman P, Ekstrand K, MacEntee M, Marinello C, Nanami T, Ow RK, Sato H, Speer C, Strub JR, Watanabe T. An international comparative multicenter study of assessment of dental appearance using computeraided image manipulation. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11(3):246-54.

32. Bolas-Colvee B, Tarazona B, Paredes-Gallardo V, Arias-De Luxan S. Relationship between perception of smile esthetics and orthodontic treatment in Spanish patients. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8):e0201102.

33. Althagafi N. Esthetic smile perception among dental students at different educational levels. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2021; 13:163-72.

34. Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M. Subjective and objective perception of upper incisors. J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33(7):489- 95.

35. Geron S, Atalia W. Inf luence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(5):778-84.

36. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88(5):402- 8.

37. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(4):628-33.

38. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(6):748-53.

39. Chang M, Wennström JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999; 10(3):185-94.

40. Robertsson S, Mohlin B. The congenitally missing upper lateral incisor. A retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus restorative treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22(6):697-710.

41. Borzabadi-Farahani A. A review of the evidence supporting the aesthetic orthodontic treatment need indices. Prog Orthod. 2012; 13(3):304-13.

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.