BackgroundAge is a factor affecting smile esthetics. Three variables of smile esthetics associated with the maxillary anterior teeth and age-related changes have recently received considerable attention: (i) the incisal edge position of the maxillary central incisors, (ii) the maxillary gingival display, and (iii) the presence of a black triangle between the maxillary central incisors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of age on smile esthetic perception based on these three variables in a group of Thai laypeople.MethodsThe smiles were constructed from a photograph of a female smile. Smile photographs were altered in various increments using three variables: the incisal edge position of the maxillary incisors, gingival display, and a black triangle between the maxillary central incisors. The photographs were shown to a group of 240 Thai laypeople. The subjects were divided into two groups: a younger group, 15–29 years old (n = 120) and an older group, 36–52 years old (n = 120). Each subject was asked to score the attractiveness of each smile separately using a visual analog scale.ResultsSmile attractiveness scores concerning the incisal edge positions of the maxillary central incisors were similar between the two groups. However, upper lip coverage was rated as unattractive by the younger group. A gingival display of 0 and 2 mm was rated as most attractive by the younger group. Upper lip coverage and gingival display of 0 and 2 mm were considered attractive by the older group. Excessive gingival display (6 mm) was scored as unattractive by both groups. A black triangle ranging from 1 to 2.5 mm between the maxillary central incisors was scored differently between the two groups. The older group was more tolerant of the black triangle size.ConclusionsAge impacts smile perception based on maxillary gingival display and the presence of a black triangle between the maxillary central incisors, but not of the incisal edge position of the maxillary central incisors. Due to the variation in esthetic perception of each individual, participation between orthodontists and patients for decision-making and treatment planning is a crucial process to provide successful results.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: The treatment plan for young patients with skeletal abnormalities is often selected by their parents. However, the treatment outcome should correspond with the patient’s preference to reduce the treatment need in the future. This study aimed to investigate the influence of post-treatment facial profiles in a skeletal Class II female subject on esthetic perceptions by laypeople of different age groups. Material and Methods: Seven digitally adjusted profile images of predetermined nasolabial angle (NLA) and facial contour angle (FCA) were obtained from a female with skeletal Class II. These profile images were evaluated by 180 laypeople and were stratified according to three age groups (12–15, 22–32, and 44–54 years) using a visual analog scale and ranking order. Results: The slightly convex profile with normal NLA (11° FCA and 91° NLA) was the most preferred by all age groups. The convex profile with the largest NLA (17° FCA and 115° NLA) was the least preferred by age group 12–15 and 44–54 years and the convex profile with normal NLA (17° FCA and 91° NLA) was the least preferred by age group 22–32 years. Sex was found to be significantly related to the rating score with females rated higher scores. Conclusion: The most attractive profile for all three age groups was a mandibular advancement-simulating profile. The least attractive profile for age groups 12–15 and 44–54 years was a most camouflage-simulating profile, while the least attractive profile for age group 22–32 years was an untreated most pronounced Class II profile.