Comparisons of Esthetic Perceptions of Smiles with Various Gingival Displays between Orthodontists and Lay People in Chiang Mai Province
The aim of this study was to compare the perceptions of the esthetics of smiles with various gingival displays between orthodontists and lay people in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Two groups of subjects were chosen. The first group consisted of 25 orthodontists, 11 males and 14 females (mean age 40.56±11.40 years); the second group consisted of 98 lay people, 48 males and 50 females (mean age 20.92±2.06 years). Seven photographs of a smile, each with a different degree of gingival display ranging from 0.0 to 6.0 mm, were presented to the subjects, who were asked to identify the aesthetically acceptable smiles. The frequency of each photograph selection was recorded. A Chi-square test was performed to compare the perceptions of the two groups. The results showed that the most acceptable smiles for orthodontists and lay people were the smiles with gingival displays of 1.0 (100%) and 0.0 (83.7%) mm, respectively, whereas the least acceptable smiles were the smiles with gingival displays of 5.0 and 6.0 mm, for both orthodontists (4.0%) and lay people (1.0%) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the perception of the esthetics of gingival display between orthodontists and lay people (p<0.05). In conclusion, the present study revealed that the perception of smiles with gingival display between orthodontists and lay people were not different.
1. Tjan AH, Miller GD. Some esthetics factors in a smile. Angle Orthod 1984; 51: 24-28.
2. Sabri R. The eight components of a balanced smile. J Clin Orthod 2005; 39(3): 155-167.
3. Kapagiannidis D, Kontonasaki E, Bikos P, et al. Teeth and gingival display in the premolar area during smiling in relation to gender and age. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32(11): 830-837.
4. Vig RG, Brundo GC. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 39(5): 502-504.
5. Silvia G, Wasserstein A. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod 2005; 75(5): 778- 784.
6. Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, et al. The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24:199-204.
7. Kokitch VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11(6): 311-324.
8. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod 1992; 62: 91-100.