Do different vertical positions of maxillary central incisors influence smile esthetics perception?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and layperson, with respect to different maxillary central incisors vertical positions in full-face and close-up smile analyses. METHODS: Frontal photographs of the smiles of two adult women were used. Images were altered to create a symmetrical image with the gingival margin levels of the maxillary canines matching the central incisors and a 1.0-mm central-to-lateral incisal step. Later, the images were altered in order to create six different central incisor vertical positions in 0.5-mm increments. The images were randomly assembled in an album, which was given to 114 judges, 57 orthodontists and 57 laypersons, who were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of the images using the visual analog scale. The data collected were statistically analyzed by means of 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post-hoc test and the Student t test.RESULTS: The highest rated smiles showed two notable characteristics: a) the central incisor gingival margins matched or were 0.5 mm below the line of the canine gingival margins and; b) the central-to-lateral incisal step was 1.0 to 1.5 mm. The worst smiles showed two notable characteristics: a) the central incisor gingival margins were 1.0 mm above or 1.5 mm below the canine gingival margins and; b) no step between the centrals and laterals or a 2.5-mm step.CONCLUSION: The vertical position of the maxillary central incisors significantly affected the perception of the smile esthetics, whereas slightly extruded central incisors were more esthetically preferred than intruded.

Perception of facial, dental, and smile esthetics by dental students

“…As an example Kokich et al evaluated the perceptions of the dental professionals and the laypersons to bilateral crown length alterations; they reported that the threshold for unattractiveness was 1.0 mm for orthodontists, 1.5 mm for general dentists, and 2.0 mm for laypeople. This variation extends to the perception of asymmetric gingival margin between orthodontists and laypersons by 0.5 mm and 1 mm, respectively . Frontal occlusal canting perception was difficult for both preclinical and clinical students; both groups had high perception threshold.…”

“…This variation extends to the perception of asymmetric gingival margin between orthodontists and laypersons by 0.5 mm and 1 mm, respectively. 30 Frontal occlusal canting perception was difficult for both preclinical and clinical students; both groups had high perception threshold.…”

Perceptions of Dentists and Non-Professionals on Some Dental Factors Affecting Smile Aesthetics: A Study from Vietnam

“…The concepts of smile attractiveness and smile design have become popular in dentistry. Smile attractiveness is strongly affected by several factors, such as the shape, size, and color of the teeth, teeth arrangement, the space between the teeth, and the surrounding structures (lips and gums) [1,2]. Occlusal cant and gingival display have also been proved to have a strong impact on smile aesthetics [3,4].…”

Die dentolabiale Ästhetik

“…Hier wird ein "möwenartiger" Schneidekantenverlauf [9] als harmonisch empfunden, was bedeutet, dass die seitlichen Schneidezähne inzisal 1-1,5 mm kürzer sein sollten als die mittleren (▶abb. 9) und sich damit eine flügelschlagartige Silhouette wie die einer Möwe ergibt [18]. In Ergänzung dazu neigen sich die Zahnachsen der Frontzähne tendenziell nach distal im Vergleich zur Senkrechten auf die Kauebene (▶abb.…”