The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Dentogingival Alterations and Their InƒPuence on Facial and Smile Attractiveness

Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez, Adriana S Malheiros, Matheus C Bandeca, Alvaro H Borges, Anna C Brito, Júlio de A Gurgel, Twigg MD Hayashida, Etevaldo MM Filho

Keywords : Attractiveness, Dental aesthetics, Dentogingilval alterations, Diastema, Smile

Citation Information : de Jesus Tavarez RR, Malheiros AS, Bandeca MC, Borges AH, Brito AC, Gurgel JD, Hayashida TM, Filho EM. Dentogingival Alterations and Their InƒPuence on Facial and Smile Attractiveness. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11):1322-1328.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2426

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of labial and dentogingival characteristics on facial and smile attractiveness. Materials and methods: Four different close-up photographs each of six women models with different labial and dentogingival characteristics were obtained. One of the models was considered standard. Photographs were arranged in an album were evaluated by 100 laypersons, and 30 dentists who ranked each close-up of the models from according to the degree of attractiveness from first to sixth place, with first being the model considered most attractive and justified the reasons for choosing. Results: The standard model received the best scores for both lips (7.75) and face (5.18). Medium-sized lips were preferred (p < 0.05), and the smile positively or negatively interfered with aesthetic perception depending on the dentogingival alteration present. Diastema was the alteration that had the greatest negative influence. Conclusion: Not all Dentogingival alterations interfere with aesthetic evaluation. The lips are not decisive in facial attractiveness. Attraction is assessed significantly differently by laypeople than by dentists. The smile directly influences the analysis of facial beauty. Clinical significance: Dentogingival alterations may be imperceptible, especially when evaluating the facial joint, so its correction will not always be necessary.

PDF Share
  1. Noureddine A, Chabouis HF, Parenton S, Lasserre JF. Laypersons’ esthetic perception of various computer-generated diastemas: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:914-920.
  2. Schabel BJ, Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Subjective vs objective evaluations of smile esthetic. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:S72-79.
  3. Behrend DA, Harcourt JK, Adams GG. Choosing the esthetic angle of the face: experiments with laypersons and prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:102-108.
  4. Sharma PK, Sharmal P. Dental smiles esthetics: the assessment and creation of the ideal smile. Semin Orthod 2012;18:193-201.
  5. Springer NC, Chang C, Fields HW, Beck FM, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S, et al. Smile esthetics from the layperson's perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:91-101.
  6. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person's perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004;31:204-209.
  7. Pithon MM, Santos AM, Andrade ACDV, Santos EM, Couto FS, Coqueiro RDAS. Perception of the esthetic impact of gingival smile on laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;115:448-454.
  8. Richards MR, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, Firestone AR, Walther DB, Rosenstiel S, et al. Contribution of malocclusion and female facial attractiveness to smile esthetics evaluated by eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147: 472-482.
  9. Cracel-Nogueira F, Pinho T. Assessment of the perception of smile esthetics by laypersons, dental students and dental practitioners. Int Orthod 2013;11:432-444.
  10. Sharma N, Rosenstiel SF, Fields HW, Beck FM. Smile characterization by U.S. white, U.S. Asian Indian, and Indian populations. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:327-335.
  11. Al-Johany SS, Alqahtani AS, Alqahtani FY, Alzahrani AH. Evaluation of different esthetic smile criteria. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:64-70.
  12. Reyneke JP, Ferretti C. Clinical assessment of the face. Sem Orthod 2012;18:172-186.
  13. Chang CA, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, Springer NC, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S, et al. Smile esthetics from patients’ perspectives for faces of varying attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e171-180.
  14. Lauria A, Rodrigues DC, de Medeiros RC, Moreira RW. Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgeons, orthodontists and laypersons in relation to the harmony of the smile. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:1664-1668.
  15. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Comparison of the influences of buccal corridors on smile esthetics between Koreans and Japanese. Orthod Waves 2009;68:166-170.
  16. Mehl C, Harder S, Lin J, Vollrath O, Math D, Kern M, Perception of dental esthetics: influence of Restoration type, symmetry, and color in four different countries. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:60-64.
  17. Van Der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Schols J, Kuijpers-Jagtmand AM. Smile line assessment comparing quantitative measurment and visual estimation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:174-180.
  18. Rodrigues Cde D, Magnani R, Machado MS, Oliveira OB. The perception of smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 2009;79:634-639.
  19. Parrini S, Rossini G, Castroflorio T, Fortini A, Deregibus A, Debernardi C. Laypeople's perceptions of frontal smile esthetics: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Nov;150(5):740-750.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.