ABSTRACT
Objective @#To study smile exposure in 20- to 30-year-olds with convex facial profiles and to explore the correlation between smile exposure and other aesthetic indicators, as well as psychological factors. @*Methods @# This study obtained ethical approval from the hospital. After they gave informed consent and portrait authorization, 80 young subjects aged 20-30 with convex facial profiles had their dynamic postural smile and spontaneous laughter recorded. The videos were imported into Photoshop CC software, key frames were selected, and the smile exposure was measured. The three-dimensional information of the subject's face in a resting state was obtained, the relevant aesthetic indicators were measured, and the satisfaction degree of their smile and laughter were evaluated. Correlation analysis was conducted for smile exposure and the relevant aesthetic indicators and subjective psychological evaluation.@*Results @# There were statistically significant differences in smile exposure, smile patterns, relevant aesthetic indicators and subjective psychological evaluation between males and females aged 20 to 30 (P<0.05). There was a large gap between males and females in the average opening degree when laughing, males having 5 times that of females, while the average gingival exposure height of the maxillary central incisor in males was approximately 1/2 of that in females. The average nasolabial angle of males (99.80° ± 7.96°) was larger than that of females (96.26° ± 7.31°) (P<0.05), while the average ratio of upper lip length to the length of the lower 1/3 of the face of males (33.73% ± 2.35%) was less than that of females (38.57% ± 2.76%) (P<0.05). The average psychological score of males (57.75±13.46) was higher than that of females (53.69±17.95) (P<0.05). The ratios of maxillary teeth and gingival exposure to oral fissure in the postural smile were positively correlated with the nasolabial angle. The oral fissure width in spontaneous laughter was negatively correlated with psychological score.@*Conclusion @# Convex-faced males and females aged 20 to 30 have different smile exposures and smile patterns. Males tend to smile more openly with a larger opening and less gingival exposure, while females tend to grin with a small opening and more gingival exposure. Smile exposure is positively correlated with nasolabial angle and negatively correlated with smile satisfaction.
ABSTRACT
Objetivo: avaliar a influência da exposição na percepção da atratividade do sorriso entre ortodontistas, clínicos gerais, leigos, acadêmicos veteranos e calouros em Odontologia, na cidade de Imperatriz-MA. Material e métodos: através de fotografias da face de dois indivíduos, de gênero masculino e feminino, agrupadas, digitalmente alteradas, com cinco níveis distintos de exposição gengival, sendo eles: cobertura dos incisivos superiores em 4 mm, incisivos superiores pelo lábio superior em 2 mm, positivos e negativos em relação à margem gengival. As imagens foram avaliadas por 30 indivíduos de cada grupo: ortodontistas, clínicos gerais, leigos, acadêmicos do 1o e 2o períodos (calouros) e 8o e 9o períodos (veteranos). Resultados: segundo os resultados para o indivíduo do sexo masculino, o sorriso mais atrativo, na opinião de ortodontistas, clínicos, acadêmicos veteranos e calouros é aquele cujo lábio superior repousa sobre o zênite gengival (p < 0,05), entretanto, na opinião dos leigos, o sorriso mais satisfatório está na cobertura dos incisivos superiores em 2 mm (p < 0,05). Para o indivíduo do sexo feminino, leigos, clínicos gerais e acadêmicos calouros consideraram esteticamente mais atrativo o sorriso em que o lábio superior recobriu os incisivos superiores em 2 mm (p < 0,05), enquanto ortodontistas e acadêmicos veteranos consideraram o sorriso no qual o lábio superior toca a margem cervical dos incisivos superiores (p < 0,05). Conclusão: a atratividade do sorriso é influenciada pela quantidade de exposição gengival, havendo divergências de opinião.
Objectives: to evaluate the influence of smile exposure on the perception of attractiveness among orthodontists, general dentists, laypersons, and dental students at the city of Imperatriz-MA. Material and methods: digitally-altered, facial photographs of two male and female individuals, with five levels of gingival exposure were presented as follows: 4 mm and 2 mm upper incisor coverage by the upper lip being positive or negatively related to their gingival margin levels. The images were evaluated by 30 persons from each group: orthodontists, general dentists, laypersons, fresh and almost graduate dental students. Results: for males, the most attractive smile according to professionals and students is that where the upper lip is at the gingival zenith (p < 0.05); however, for laypersons, the most attractive smile covers the upper incisors by 2 mm (p < 0.05). For females, the situation of 2 mm coverage was considered the most attractive (p < 0.05) by laypersons, general clinicians and dental students, whereas orthodontists and veterans the upper lip must touch the cervical margins of the central incisors (p < 0.05). Conclusion: smile attractiveness is influenced by lip exposure with varied opinions on this subject.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Esthetics, Dental , Gingiva , Photography, Dental/statistics & numerical data , SmilingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to validate the autonomous maximal smile (AMS) as a new reference for evaluating dental and gingival exposure. METHODS: Digital video clips of 100 volunteers showing posed smiles and AMS at different verbal directives were recorded for evaluation a total of three times at 1-week intervals. Lip-teeth relationship width (LTRW) and buccal corridor width (BCW) were measured. LTRW represented the vertical distance between the inferior border of the upper vermilion and the edge of the maxillary central incisors. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for reproducibility, and the m-value (minimum number of repeated measurements required for an ICC level over 0.75), were calculated. RESULTS: LTRW and BCW of the AMS were 1.41 and 2.04 mm, respectively, greater than those of the posed smile (p < 0.05), indicating significantly larger dental and gingival exposure in the AMS. The reproducibility of the AMS (0.74 to 0.77) was excellent, and higher than that of the posed smile (0.62 to 0.65), which had fair-to-good reproducibility. Moreover, the m-value of the AMS (0.88 to 1.05) was lower than that of the posed smile (1.59 to 1.85). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the posed smile, the AMS shows significantly larger LTRW and BCW, with significantly higher reproducibility. The AMS might serve as an adjunctive reference, in addition to the posed smile, in orthodontic and other dentomaxillofacial treatments.
Subject(s)
Incisor , VolunteersABSTRACT
Objective To survey aesthetics cognition for smiling beauty in young people smile. Methods Smile model was established. The middle incisor width/length ratio, lateral incisor and middle incisor width ratio, difference of lateral incisor and the middle incisor gingival level, gingiva exposure, buccal corridor width and smile line radian were used as variable values to change respectively. A total of 200 young people were selected to evaluate results. The differences in index of ideal value and acceptable range between different dender groups were calculated. Results The ideal value of middle incisor width/length ratio was 0.75, and acceptable range was 0.65-0.85. The ideal value of lateral incisor and middle incisor width ratio was 0.618, and acceptable range was 0.518-0.718. The ideal value of lateral incisor and the middle incisor gingival level difference was-0.5 mm, and the acceptable range was-1-0 mm. The ideal value of gingiva exposure was 0 mm, and the acceptable range was 0-2 mm. The ideal value of buccal corridor was 0.09, and the acceptable range was 0.05-0.21. Coordinate smile was ideal smile line (value=1), and the acceptable range was 0.5-1. There were no statistically significant differences in smile esthetics of six ideal value indicators and acceptable ranges between different gender groups. Conclusion The ideal values and acceptable ranges of six indexes of quantitative criteria can be used for clinical treatment.