ORIGINAL RESEARCH


https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2721
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Volume 20 | Issue 12 | Year 2019

Applicability of the Existence of Golden Standard and Golden Percentage in the Population of Jaipur, Rajasthan, India: A Comparative Study


Zuber A Naqvi1, Amit Gupta2, Karamdeep S Ahluwalia3

1–3Department of Orthodontics, Jaipur Dental College, Maharaj Vinayak Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Corresponding Author: Zuber A Naqvi, Department of Orthodontics, Jaipur Dental College, Maharaj Vinayak Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, Phone: +91 8769712597, e-mail: zuber2881@gmail.com

How to cite this article Naqvi ZA, Gupta A, Ahluwalia KS. Applicability of the Existence of Golden Standard and Golden Percentage in the Population of Jaipur, Rajasthan, India: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(12):1456–1460.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

ABSTRACT

Aim: An evaluation for the existence of the golden percentage and golden standard in Jaipur population: a comparative study.

Materials and methods: Sample includes a total of 300 dentulous casts of participants including 150 males and 150 females. The cast belongs to the students, patients, and their attendants of Jaipur origin by birth who visited the Jaipur Dental College and Hospital. The width and height of maxillary teeth were measured by using a digital caliper. A grid was used to measure apparent widths of teeth. Student’s t test was used to analyze the data using SPSS for Windows software (version 21) at the level of significance p %3C; 0.05.

Results: The mean and standard deviation (SD) for the golden percentage of right and left central incisors, right and left lateral incisors, and for right and left canines was found to be statistically significant from the ideal golden percentage (p < 0.05). The difference between mean and SD of the golden standard for right and left central incisors from the standard (80%) was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The golden percentage and golden standard did not exist in Jaipur population.

Clinical significance: The result of this study shows deviation from the ideal golden percentage and golden standard for Jaipur population which can be used clinically as a guideline for esthetic results.

Keywords: Digital caliper, Golden percentage, Golden standard, Grid, Perceived width.

INTRODUCTION

During the last few decades, it was noticed that both the patients and dentists show a rapid increase in interest for dental esthetics.1 During a comprehensive treatment planning, dentists should have in-depth knowledge and understanding in esthetics, harmony, and proportion, as anticipated by people.2

At present, the concept of beauty or esthetics is highly determined by media. They influenced our life that brings facial “standards” that describe perceptions of esthetics, well-being, and fitness, mixed with feelings of social achievement, intelligence, prosperity, and happiness. Nowadays, an esthetic face considers the vital to success.35 Hence, dental professionals should have a thorough knowledge of facial characteristics that considered “attractive” by the people.69 The most important dental aspect within the esthetic factors which can be easily controlled is the relative dimension of teeth. Proximal/incisal tooth wear and the individual tooth size variations cause difficult to define ideal tooth dimensions. The “golden percentage” and “golden standard” were proposed to determine the apparent size of teeth as examined from the front.1014

The golden percentage and golden standard provide a guideline to achieve esthetic results after dental treatment. The ideal values for golden percentage and golden standard were given by study on a specific population. Snow10 proposed a bilateral analysis of perceived individual tooth width as a percentage of the total perceived width of the maxillary anterior teeth. He introduced the golden percentage to achieve an esthetically pleasing smile, in which the proportional width of right central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, left canine, lateral incisor, and central incisor is 25%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 15%, and 25%, respectively, of the total distance across the anterior segment. However, the results of previous studies showed that golden percentage and the golden standard are not applicable to different ethnic populations.1518

The aims of our study were to evaluate the existence and applicability of golden percentage and golden standard in Jaipur population and to compare the golden percentage and golden standard between male and female.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample for this study comprised of study models of 300 subjects including 150 males and 150 females. The subjects were the students, patients, and their attendants who visited the Jaipur dental college and hospital. All subjects belonged to Jaipur by birth. The ancestor origin was established after enquiring with concerned subjects.

Fig. 1: Caliper

The inclusion criteria were the following:

Following are the exclusion criteria:

The instruments and dental materials used were the perforated metal stock trays, rubber bowls, curved metal spatula, straight metal spatula, alginate impression material, dental stone, dental plaster, base formers, and sandpaper.

A digital caliper (Fig. 1) with precision reading to the nearest 0.01 mm was used to measure the size of teeth. The mesiodistal (MD) width was measured between the contact points of the tooth. A single researcher measured tooth size twice, from right canine to left canine. If the difference between two measurements was more than 0.2 mm, then the tooth was measured again and only the new measure was registered.

Method to Determine the Golden Percentage from the Casts

The perceived width of teeth was measured by using a grid (Fig. 2). The golden percentage was calculated by dividing the perceived width of central incisor, lateral incisor, and canine by the total width of maxillary anterior teeth and multiplying it by 100. The ideal golden percentage was 10%, 15%, 25%, 25%, 15%, and 10%, from canine to canine.10

Method to Determine the Golden Standard

The MD width and height of maxillary central incisor were measured by digital caliper as explained above. The width-to-height ratio was calculated by dividing MD width by height of tooth and multiplying the result by 100. The ideal width-to-height ratio of upper central incisor should be approximately 80%. A higher width-to-height ratio means a squarer tooth, and a lower ratio indicates a long tooth.1921

Fig. 2: Grid

Table 1: Comparison between the present study result and the standard golden percentage
TeethMean (%)SD (%)p value
Right central incisor24.9310.4500.008
Standard golden percentage25  
Right lateral incisor15.4650.2960.000
Standard golden percentage15  
Right canine9.5920.2750.000
Standard golden percentage10  
Left central incisor24.9310.4490.008
Standard golden percentage25  
Left lateral incisor15.4760.3500.000
Standard golden percentage15  
Left canine9.6040.2680.000
Standard golden percentage10  

Fig. 3: Comparison between the present study result and the standard golden percentage. RCI, right central incisor; RLI, right lateral incisor; Rcan, right canine; LCI, left central incisor; LLI, left lateral incisor; Lcan, left canine

The data obtained were tabulated and analyzed using Student’s t test at the level of significance p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS for Windows software (version 21).

RESULTS

Golden Percentage

Table 1 and Figure 3 showed the mean golden percentage and SD for maxillary anterior teeth and it revealed that the upper anterior teeth were not in golden percentage. The mean and SD for the golden percentage of right central incisor was 24.931 μ 0.450, for right lateral incisor was 15.465 μ 0.296, and for right canine was 9.592 μ 0.275. The mean and SD for the golden percentage of left central incisor was 24.931 μ 0.449, for left lateral incisor was 15.476 μ 0.350, and for left canine was 9.604 μ 0.268. The difference between the standard golden percentage and our study was found to be statistically significant for all six anterior teeth (p < 0.05) (Table 1 and Fig. 3).

Table 2: Comparison of the tooth width/height ratio for the upper central incisor with ideal golden standard (80%)
Central incisorMean (%)SD (%)p value
Right central incisor80.3091.6490.001
Ideal golden standard80  
Left central incisor80.2831.6640.003
Ideal golden standard80  

Golden Standard

The mean and SD of width/height ratio for right central incisor was 80.309% μ 1.649 and for left central incisor was 80.283% μ 1.664. When compared from standard (80%), the difference was found to be significant (p 0.001, 0.003) for both right and left central incisors (Table 2, Fig. 4).

Golden Percentage between Males and Females

Both male and female groups were compared for the golden percentage and results are shown in Table 3. The mean and SD for golden percentage of right central incisor for males was 24.919 μ 0.386 and for females was 24.944 μ 506. For right lateral incisor in males, it was 15.479 μ 0.237 and for females was 15.452 μ 0.0345. For right canine in males, it was 9.597 μ 0.214 and for females was 9.586 μ 0.325. The mean and SD for the golden percentage of left central incisor for males was 24.919 μ 0.386 and for females was 24.944 μ 0.505; left lateral incisor for males was 15.488 μ 0.236 and for females was 15.465 μ 0.435; and for left canine in males was 9.600 μ 0.216 and in females was 9.609 μ 0.312. The difference between the male and female group was statistically nonsignificant (p %3E; 0.05) for right and left central and lateral incisors, whereas for right and left canine, the difference between the groups was found statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 3 and Fig. 5).

Fig. 4: Comparison of the tooth width/height ratio for the upper central incisor with ideal golden standard (80%). RCI, right central incisor; LLI, left lateral incisor

Fig. 5: Golden percentage in males and females. RCI, right central incisor; RLI, right lateral incisor; Rcan, right canine; LCI, left central incisor; LLI, left lateral incisor; Lcan, left canine

Table 3: Golden percentage in males and females
TeethMales
Females
p value
MeanSDMeanSD
Right central incisor24.9190.38624.9440.5060.121
Standard golden percentage25    
Right lateral incisor15.4790.23715.4520.3450.214
Standard golden percentage15    
Right canine  9.5970.2149.5860.3250.020
Standard golden percentage10    
Left central incisor24.9190.38624.9440.5050.120
Standard golden percentage25    
Left lateral incisor15.4880.23615.4650.4350.099
Standard golden percentage15    
Left canine  9.6000.2169.6090.3120.032
Standard golden percentage10    
Table 4: Golden standard in males and females
Central incisorMale
Female
p value
Mean (%)SD (%)Mean (%)SD (%)
Right central incisor80.4611.56880.1571.7170.342
Ideal golden standard80    
Left central incisor80.4221.56180.1441.7540.173
Ideal golden standard80    

Fig. 6: Golden standard in males and females. RCI, right central incisor; LLI, left lateral incisor

Golden Standard between Males and Females

The mean and SD of width-to-height ratio for right central incisor in males was 80.461% μ 1.568 and in females was 80.157% μ 1.717. For left central incisor in males, it was 80.422% μ 1.561 and in females was 80.144% μ 1.754. The difference between the groups was found to be statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05) (Table 4 and Fig. 6).

DISCUSSION

The upper front teeth size, morphology, and arrangement are the most influential factor for harmonious appearance, especially when viewed from the front. In our study; with respect to the golden percentage, the mean and SD for the golden percentage of right central incisor and right canine is less than the standard golden percentage, but the width of the lateral incisor is slightly greater than the standard golden percentage. The difference in width of the right central incisor (24.931 μ 0.450), lateral incisor (15.465 μ 0.296), and canine (9.592 μ 0.275) to the standard golden percentage as suggested by Snow (25, 15, 10) is statistically significant (p %3C; 0.05) (Table 1 and Fig. 3).10

The mean and SD for the golden percentage of left central incisor and left canine is also less than the standard golden percentage, and the width of the lateral incisor is marginally greater than the standard golden percentage. The difference in width of left central incisor (24.931 μ 0.449), left lateral incisor (15.476 μ 0.350), and left canine (9.604 μ 0.268) to the standard golden percentage as recommended by Snow10 (25, 15, 10) is found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 1 and Fig. 3).

In general, the value for central incisor and canine is slightly lesser and the value of lateral incisor is marginally greater than those recommended by the standard golden percentage (Table 1 and Fig. 3). This shows that the standard golden percentage (25, 15, and 10) is not applicable to Jaipur population. Similar results were found by Snow who proposed that golden percentage theory is applicable if percentages are adjusted according to the ethnicity of the population.10

Our results are in agreement with Fayyad et al.15 who also suggested that the golden percentage was not applicable on the subjects of their study. However, a slight modification of these percentages can be adopted taking into consideration the ethnicity differences of the subjects. In their study, the values obtained were 12%, 15%, 23%, 23%, 15%, and 12%. Similarly in Jaipur population also golden percentage can be adjusted to 9%, 15%, 24%, 24%, 15%, and 9%.

The upper anterior teeth are closely related to the jaw and facial appearance, which are important for esthetics and physical anthropology. The maxillary anterior teeth should be put in optimal dentolabial relations, in harmony with the overall facial appearance. The size and form of the maxillary anterior teeth are important for both dental and facial esthetics. The harmonious anterior dentition is influenced by many factors like morphology and arrangement of the maxillary anterior teeth, specifically the upper central incisors in anterior view.13,2224

Data related to the natural tooth dimensions are available through various tooth morphology sources.2325 The mesiocervical and incisocervical dimensions of teeth were available since 1902 and it is only recently that the crown width/length ratios have been considered.11

Sterrett et al. used the caliper to measure the dimensions on the casts and he found a homogenous ratio (81%) for the three anterior maxillary tooth groups.11 Magne et al. did the measurements on extracted teeth using imaging software. He measured the width/length ratios and provides data for worn and unworn teeth. The ranking for width/length ratio for the specimens studied emphasizes the difference between unworn teeth, with average ratios between 73% and 78%, and worn teeth, with average ratios between 79% and 87% teeth.26 However, in the present study, the measurements were done on the stone casts using a digital caliper (read up to 0.01 mm) (Fig. 1).

Peixoto et al. concluded that the ideal width-to-height ratio for the central incisor should lie between 75% and 80%. However, an esthetically acceptable ratio appearance is in the 65–85% range.21 The results of our study showed width-to-height ratio greater than previous studies conducted by Hasanresioglu et al.,18 and Parnia et al.,19 Wolfart et al.,20 and these studies concluded that there is no golden standard in the nature. Another study conducted in Korea showed similar results for the noncelebrities group.23 The difference between ideal width-to-height ratio (80%) and our result (right central incisor 80.309% and left central incisor 80.283%) was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). These results are because of differences in racial characteristics (Table 2 and Fig. 4). Our results are in disagreement with Ku et al. who concluded that after analyzing maxillary anterior teeth of Korean adults, their results were in accordance with the general Western standards of esthetics.27

The golden percentage was compared for the male and female groups, and the difference between right and left central incisors, right and left lateral incisors is statistically nonsignificant (p %3E; 0.05), whereas the difference between right and left male and female canine widths is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our results are in agreement with previous studies which concluded that gender has no statistically significant effect when the golden percentage was compared between male and female groups (Table 3 and Fig. 5).15,28

There was no statistically significant (p > 0.05) difference in the width/height ratio of maxillary central incisors between the male and female groups. Our results are in agreement with Nalla et al. (Table 4 and Fig. 6).29

CONCLUSION

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The result of this study shows deviation from ideal golden percentage and golden standard for Jaipur population which can be used clinically as a guideline for esthetic results.

REFERENCES

1. Carlsson GE, Johansson A, Johansson AK, et al. Attitudes toward dental appearance in 50- and 60-year old subjects living in Sweden. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20(1):46–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00148.x.

2. Park DJ, Yang JH, Lee JB, et al. Esthetic improvement in the patient with one missing maxillary central incisor restored with porcelain laminate veneers. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2(3):77–80. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.77.

3. Johnson N, Sandy J. An aesthetic index for evaluation of cleft repair. Eur J Orthod 2003;25(3):243–249. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/25.3.243.

4. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(2):141–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.017.

5. Shaw WC. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod 1981;79(4):399–415. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90382-1.

6. Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(3):757–774. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000207382.60636.1c.

7. Naini FB, Moss JP, Gill DS. The enigma of facial beauty: esthetics, proportions, deformity, and controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130:277–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.027.

8. Scott CR, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Influence of lips on the perception of malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(2):152–162. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.036.

9. Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, et al. Three-dimensional facial morphometry of attractive children and normal children in the deciduous and early mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2007;77(6):1025–1033. DOI: 10.2319/100206-400.1.

10. Snow SR. Esthetic smile analysis of maxillary anterior tooth width: the golden percentage. J Esthet Dent 1999;11(4):177–184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00397.x.

11. Sterrett JD, Oliver T, Robinson F, et al. Width/length ratios of normal clinical crowns of the maxillary anterior dentition in man. J Clin Periodontol 1999;26(3):153–157. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051X.1999.260304.x.

12. Qualtrough AJ., Burke FJ. A look at dental aesthetics. Quintessence Int 1994;25(1):7–14.

13. Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists’ and patient’s concepts. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100(3):345–352. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0093.

14. Gillen RJ, Schwartz RS, Hilton TJ, et al. An analysis of selected normative tooth proportions. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(5):410–417.

15. Fayyad MA, Jaman KD, Aqrabawi J. Geometric and mathematical proportions and their relations to maxillary anterior teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7(5):1–10. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-62.

16. Murthy BV, Ramani S. Evaluation of natural smile: golden proportion, RED or golden percentage. J Conserv Dent 2008;11(1):16–21. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.43413.

17. Rita ME, Kinga J, Carmen B, et al. Aesthetic Principles of the upper front teeth: application of golden proportion (levin) and golden percentage (snow). Acta Medica Marisiensis 2013;59(1):25–27. DOI: 10.2478/amma-2013-0005.

18. Hasanresioglu U, Berksun S, Arus K, et al. An analysis of maxillary anterior teeth: facial and dental proportion. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(6):530–538. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.10.007.

19. Parnia F, Hafezeqoran A, Mahboub F, et al. Proportions of maxillary anterior teeth relative to each other and to the golden standard in tabriz dental faculty students. JODDD 2010;4(3):83–86. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2010.021.

20. Wolfart S, Quass AC, Freitag S, et al. Subjective and objective perception of upper incisors. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(7):489–495. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01581.x.

21. Peixoto LM, Louro RL, Gomes AA, et al. Photographic analysis of esthetic dental proportions. Rev Gaucha Odontol 2012;60(1):13–17.

22. Marquardt SR. Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt on the golden decagon and human facial beauty. Interview by dr. Gottlieb. J Clin Orthod 2002;36(6):339–347.

23. Lee SL, Kim HJ, Son MK, et al. Anthropometric analysis of maxillary anterior buccal bone of Korean adults using conebeam CT. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2(3):92–96. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.92.

24. Gürel G. Predictable, precise, and repeatable tooth preparation for porcelain laminate veneers. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003;15(1):17–24.

25. Black GV. Descriptive anatomy of the human teeth. Philadelphia: The S.S. White Dental Manufacturing; 1902.

26. Magne P, Gallucci GO, Belser UC. Anatomic crown width/length ratios of unworn and worn maxillary teeth in white subjects. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(5):453–461. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00125-2.

27. Ku JE, Yang HS, Yun KD. A morphometric analysis of maxillary central incisor on the basis of facial appearance in Korea. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(1):13–17. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.1.13.

28. Mahajan V, Nagpal A, Gupta R, et al. Comparative evaluation of golden proportion, recurring esthetic dental proportion and golden percentage in Himachal demographic. J Adv Med Med Res 2019;29(10):1–7. DOI: 10.9734/jammr/2019/v29i1030133.

29. Nalla S, Parth S, Siva S, et al. An analysis of maxillary anterior teeth dimensions for the existence of golden proportion: clinical study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(9):18–21.

________________________
© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.