Smile attractiveness after orthodontic treatment

Kumar, Mukesh; Goyal, Manish; Kaur, Amandeep; Abrar, Md

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.07.009

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The appearance of a smile plays a fundamental role in judging the attractiveness of a face [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Such a linkage has been extensively investigated by many scientific studies aimed at evaluating the perception of smile aesthetics based on the characteristics of the occlusion as well as on the make-up of the examining population [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. A regular and healthy-looking smile is considered an expression of well-being and self-confidence, closely linked to a younger and more attractive appearance [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clear Aligners and Smart Eye Tracking Technology as a New Communication Strategy between Ethical and Legal Issues

Putrino

Marinelli

Raso

et al. 2023

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart eye-tracking technology (SEET) that determines visual attention using smartphones can be used to determine the aesthetic perception of different types of clear aligners. Its value as a communication and comprehension tool, in addition to the ethical and legal concerns which it entails, can be assessed. One hundred subjects (50 F, 50 M; age range 15–70) were equally distributed in non-orthodontic (A) and orthodontic (B) groups. A smartphone-based SEET app assessed their knowledge of and opinions on aligners. Subjects evaluated images of smiles not wearing aligners, with/without attachments and with straight/scalloped gingival margins, as a guided calibration step which formed the image control group. Subsequently, the subjects rated the same smiles, this time wearing aligners (experimental images group). Questionnaire data and average values for each group of patients, and images relating to fixation times and overall star scores, were analyzed using these tests: chi-square, t-test, Mann–Whitney U, Spearman’s rho, and Wilcoxon (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA and related post-hoc tests were also applied. Orthodontic patients were found to be better informed than non-orthodontic patients. Aesthetic perception could be swayed by several factors. Attachments scored lower in aesthetic evaluation. Lips distracted attention from attachments and improved evaluations. Attachment-free aligners were better rated overall. A more thorough understanding as to the opinions, expectations and aesthetic perception of aligners can improve communication with patients. Mobile SEET is remarkably promising, although it does require a careful medicolegal risk–benefit assessments for responsible and professional use.

show abstract