World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Orthodontic Treatment on Smile Attractiveness as perceived by Common People, General Dentists and Orthodontists

Karan Nehra

Citation Information : Nehra K. Influence of Orthodontic Treatment on Smile Attractiveness as perceived by Common People, General Dentists and Orthodontists. World J Dent 2016; 7 (1):18-22.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1357

Published Online: 00-03-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives

To analyze the influence of orthodontic treatment on smile attractiveness as perceived by common people, general dentists and orthodontists.

Materials and methods

The photographic records of 114 patients were screened and 72 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. The pretreatment and posttreatment smile photographs were rated on a 10-point scale by panels of common people, general dentists and orthodontists. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's post hoc test.

Results

The mean esthetic scores for pretreatment images as evaluated by the three panels; orthodontists, general dentists and common people were 3.26, 3.20 and 3.31 respectively. The difference in esthetic scores between these three groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). For post-treatment images, the mean esthetic scores by the three panels; orthodontists, general dentist and common people were 6.45, 6.50 and 7.32 respectively. Esthetic scores between these three groups differed significantly (p < 0.05) with common people displaying significantly higher score than orthodontists and general dentists, however no difference was seen between orthodontists and general dentists. It was also seen that the percentage change in mean esthetic scores from pre- to posttreatment smile was significantly higher for common people as compared to orthodontist (p < 0.05) and no difference was seen between orthodontists and general dentists or common people and general dentists respectively.

Conclusion

Though there is no difference in perception of smile esthetics between common people, general dentists and orthodontists, the influence of orthodontic treatment on smile attractiveness is appreciated differently by the common people as compared to general dentists and orthodontists.

How to cite this article

Kumar P, Patil C, Nehra K, Sharma M. Influence of Orthodontic Treatment on Smile Attractiveness as perceived by Common People, General Dentists and Orthodontists. World J Dent 2016;7(1):18-22.


PDF Share
  1. Changes in frontal soft tissue dimensions of the lower face by age and gender. World J Orthod 2002;3:313-320.
  2. Smile analysis: a review Part I. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev, vol. 2015, 2015. doi:10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.64.
  3. 2015, 2015. doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.68.
  4. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:180-187.
  5. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:517-522.
  6. The effect of axial midline angulation on dental esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:359-364.
  7. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-324.
  8. A morphometric analysis of the posed smile. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:2-11.
  9. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 1. Evolution of the concept and dynamic records for smile capture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:4-12.
  10. A balanced smile ˗ the most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod 1977;72:359-372.
  11. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:98-111.
  12. Psychological aspects of dentofacial deformities and its treatment. In: Profitt WR, White RP Jr., Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformities. 1st ed. Mosby; 2003. p. 69.
  13. The Mandibular incisor-Its Role in Facial Esthetics; Angle Orthod 1955;25:32-41.
  14. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63:183-190.
  15. Smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;108:162-167.
  16. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304.
  17. A dental-facial attractiveness scale. Part I. Reliability and validity. Am J Orthod 1983;83:38-46.
  18. Panel assessments of facial profile related to mandibular growth direction. Eur J Orthod 1987;9:271-278.
  19. Changes in smile parameters as perceived by orthodontists, dentists, artists, and laypeople. World J Orthod 2008;9:132-140.
  20. Smile esthetics: perception and comparison of treated and untreated smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;129:8-16.
  21. Facial changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Angle Orthod 1998;68:539-546.
  22. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1970; 57:132-144.
  23. Perception of the facial profile and orthodontic treatment outcome -importance of patientʹs opinion in the treatment plan. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 2015;1:1-5.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.