Dimensions of Maxillary Lateral Incisor on the Esthetic Perception of Smile: A Comparative Study of Dental Professionals and the General Population
Shoroog Hassan Agou, Abeer Adel Basri, Shaymaa M Mudhaffer, Ahmed T Altarazi, Mustafa A Elhussein, Ahmad Yahya Imam
Citation Information :
Agou SH, Basri AA, Mudhaffer SM, Altarazi AT, Elhussein MA, Imam AY. Dimensions of Maxillary Lateral Incisor on the Esthetic Perception of Smile: A Comparative Study of Dental Professionals and the General Population. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (9):992-996.
Aim: To evaluate the effect of the differences in the dimensions of maxillary lateral incisor on the esthetic perception of smile among dental professionals and the general population. Materials and methods: Two sets of photographs where the maxillary incisor dimensions were modified using computer software (Adobe Photoshop) were created. In the first set, six images were included where the maxillary lateral incisor width was modified. The second set included five images where only the maxillary lateral incisor length was modified keeping the gingival margins same. Three groups of participants formed the sample. Hypodontia patients formed the first group, non-hypodontia patients formed the control group, while the dentists constituted to the third group. A total of 156 participants were recruited, 36 patients with radiographically confirmed hypodontia out of which 22 were female and 14 were male, 54 non-hypodontia “control” patients out of which 29 were female and 24 were male, and 66 dentists out of which 39 were female and 27 were male. Every participant had 15 seconds to view each photograph along with 30 seconds at the end for confirmation. Results: The “most attractive smile” was the ones with 77% lateral incisor to central incisor width proportion according to 25.0% of the hypodontia group and 40.8% of the dentist's group, while only 4.2% of the control group agreed that it was the most attractive. However, the “least popular” was the 52% lateral incisor to central incisor width proportion according to 40.0% of patients who are hypodontic, 20.8% of participants from control group, and 49.0% of dentists. Conclusion: The golden proportion was not considered as the most attractive among all groups. The esthetic perceptions of the patients might not be same as that of the dentists. In general, reductions in the maxillary lateral incisor width were not all acceptable. Clinical significance: This study will help us understand the different perceptions of the patients and the dentists on esthetics, which would further help us in planning the treatment accordingly.
Talic N, AlOmar S, AlMaidhan A. Perception of Saudi dentists and lay people to altered smile esthetics. Saudi Dent J 2013;25(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.09.001.
Kavadia S, Papadiochou S, Papadiochos I, et al. Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors: a global overview of the clinical problem. Orthodontics: (Chic) 2011;12(4):296–317.
Polder BJ, Van't Hof MA, Van der Linden FP, et al. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32(3):217–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00158.x.
Vahid-Dastjerdi E, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mahdian M, et al. Non-syndromic hypodontia in an Iranian orthodontic population. J Oral Sci 2010;52(3):455–461. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.52.455.
Shabzendedar M, Mehrjerdian M. Prevalence of hypodontia in nine-to fourteen-year-old children who attended the Mashhad School of Dentistry. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(4):549. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.74215.
Rølling S, Poulsen S. Agenesis of permanent teeth in 8138 Danish schoolchildren: prevalence and intra-oral distribution according to gender. Int J Paediat Dent 2009;19(3):172–175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00958.x.
Celikoglu M, Kazanci F, Miloglu O, et al. Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(5):e797–e801. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.15.e797.
Pini NP, De-Marchi LM, Gribel BF, et al. Analysis of the golden proportion and width/height ratios of maxillary anterior dentition in patients with lateral incisor agenesis. J Esthet Dent 2012;24(6): 402–414. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2012.00533.x.
Spear FM, Mathezus DM, Kokich VG, Interdisciplinary management of single-tooth implants. Paper presented at: Seminars in Orthodontics 1997.
Kinzer GA, Kokich Jr VO. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part III: single-tooth implants. J Esthet Dent 2005;17(4):202–210. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00116.x.
Kokich Jr VO, Kinzer GA. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part I: canine substitution. J Esthet Dent 2005;17(1):5–10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00076.x.
Armbruster PC, Gardiner DM, Whitley Jr JB, et al. The congenitally missing upper lateral incisor: Part 2: assessing dentists’ preferences for treatment. World J Orthodont 2005;6(4).
Kinzer GA, Kokich Jr VO. Managing congenitally missing lateral incisors. Part II: tooth-supported restorations. J Esthet Dent 2005;17(2):76–84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00089.x.
Bukhary S, Gill D, Tredwin C, et al. The influence of varying maxillary lateral incisor dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J 2007;203(12):687. DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2007.1110.
Millar B, Taylor N. Lateral thinking: The management of missing upper lateral incisors. Br Dent J 1995;179(3):99–106. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808848.
Hasanreisoglu U, Berksun S, Aras K, et al. An analysis of maxillary anterior teeth: facial and dental proportions. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(6):530–538. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.10.007.
Coffield KD, Phillips C, Brady M, et al. The psychosocial impact of developmental dental defects in people with hereditary amelogenesis imperfecta. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(5):620–630. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0233.
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.
Rosenzweig KA, Garbaski D. Numerical aberrations in the permanent teeth of grade school children in Jerusalem. Am J Phys Anthropol 1965;23(3):277–283. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330230315.
Eidelman E, Chosack A, Rosenzweig KA. Hypodontia: prevalence amongst Jewish populations of different origin. Am J Phys Anthropol 1973;39(1):129–133. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330390113.
Niswander JD, Sujaku C. Congenital anomalies of teeth in Japanese children. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963;21(4):569–574. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330210413.
Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish school children. Scand J Dent Res 1973;81(1):12–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1973.tb01489.x.
Ringqvist M, Thilander B. The frequency of hypodontia in an orthodontic material. Sven Tandlaek Tidskr 1969;62:535–541.
Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, et al. Assessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113(2):159–165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00206.x.
Kokich VOJr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11(6):311–324. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999. tb00414.x.
Preston JD. The golden proportion revisited. J Esthet Dent 1993;5(6):247–251. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1993.tb00788.x.
Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists’ and patients’ concepts. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100(3):345–352. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0093.