Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
http://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.08917
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Perception of dentists, dental students, and patients on dentogingival aesthetics

Percepção de dentistas, estudantes de odontologia e pacientes sobre a estética dentogengival

Migueli DURIGON; Bruno Pinto ALESSI; Matheus NEVES; Micheline Sandini TRENTIN

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Patients’ demand for dentogingival aesthetics has increased significantly in recent years, and this is a complex concept due to numerous factors involved in obtaining patient/professional satisfaction. Some dentogingival features may alter smile harmony, such as excessive gingival display.

Objective: To evaluate whether the presence of gingival display has a negative influence on the perception of dentogingival aesthetics.

Material and method: 180 individuals (60 dentists, 60 dental students, and 60 patients) evaluated images of volunteer smiles. These images were digitally altered by the Adobe Photoshop™ software, creating different situations of gingival display (4 mm, 2 mm, 0 mm, -2 mm, -4 mm), and graded by the evaluators with the following scores: (01) very pleasant smile, (02) pleasant smile, and 03) unpleasant smile. The scores assigned were analyzed using ANOVA (α=0.05).

Result: Gingival displays between 0 and 2 mm were considered aesthetically pleasing. Changes of -4 and +4 mm were defined as the most disharmonious smiles. The 0-mm female smile was considered the most harmonious for dentists (1.51) and dental students (1.77), by Student's t test (p<0.05). In the opinion of patients, the smile of +2 mm was considered the most aesthetic. In the image evaluations of men, the 0-mm smile was considered the most aesthetic (p <0.05) for dentists (1.85) and dental students (1.62). The patients considered +2 mm of gingival display the most harmonious smile.

Conclusion: The aesthetic perception of dental students and dentists was different when compared to the group of patients.

Keywords

Aesthetics, smile, gingiva

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: A procura dos pacientes pela estética dentogengival tem aumentado significativamente nos últimos anos, sendo um conceito complexo devido aos inúmeros fatores envolvidos para a obtenção da satisfação paciente/profissional. Algumas características dentogengivais podem alterar a harmonia do sorriso como por exemplo o excesso de exposição gengival.

Objetivo: Avaliar se a presença da exposição gengival tem uma influência negativa na percepção da estética dentogengival.

Material e método: 180 indivíduos (60 dentistas, 60 acadêmicos de odontologia e 60 pacientes) avaliaram imagens de sorrisos de voluntários. Essas imagens foram alteradas digitalmente pelo software Adobe Photoshop™, criando diferentes situações de exposições gengivais (4 mm, 2 mm, 0 mm, -2 mm, -4 mm), e classificados pelos avaliadores através dos escores: (01) sorriso muito agradável, (02) agradável e (03) desagradável. Os escores atribuídos foram analisados por meio da ANOVA (α=0,05).

Resultado: Exposições gengivais entre 0 e 2 mm foram consideradas esteticamente agradáveis. Alterações de -4 e +4 mm foram definidas como as mais desarmônicas. O sorriso de 0 mm no sexo feminino foi considerado mais harmônico para os dentistas (1,51) e estudantes de odontologia (1,77), pelo teste t de Student (p<0.05). Na opinião dos pacientes o sorriso de +2 mm foi considerado o mais estético. Na avaliação das imagens do sexo masculino, o sorriso de 0 mm foi considerado o mais estético (p<0,05), para dentistas (1,85) e estudantes de odontologia (1,62). Os pacientes consideraram +2 mm de exposição gengival como o sorriso mais harmônico.

Conclusão: A percepção estética de estudantes de odontologia e cirurgiões dentistas foram diferentes quando comparado ao grupo dos pacientes.
 

Palavras-chave

Estética, sorriso, gengiva

References

Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N. Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire to improve aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Feb;11(1):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-11-6. PMid:21342536.

Mokhtar HA, Abuljadayel LW, Al-Ali RM, Yousef M. The perception of smile attractiveness among Saudi population. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015 Jan;7:17-23. PMid:25653558.

Seixas MR, Costa Pinto RA, Araujo TM. Gingival esthetics: an orthodontic and periodontal approach. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012 Oct;17(5):190-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000500025.

Xie C, Meng Y. A case report on esthetic and functional correction of maxillary protrusion using a prosthodontics-centered multidisciplinary approach. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr;36(2):e33-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/prd.2034. PMid:26901308.

Naik P, Manohar MR, Shivaprakash G, Jabeen N. Smile esthetics: evaluation of differential perception among laypersons, dental professionals and orthodontics. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2014 Jan;13(1):35-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/0853-13123543.

Pavone AF, Ghassemian M, Verardi S. Gummy smile and short tooth syndrome. Part 1: etiopathogenesis classifications, and diagnostic guidelines. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2016 Feb;37(2):102-7, quiz 108-10. PMid:26905089.

Del Castillo R, Hernández AM, Ercoli C. Conservative orthodontic-prosthodontic approach for excessive gingival display: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jul;114(1):3-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.024. PMid:25913371.

Cotrin ER, Vasconcelos AV Jr, Haddad AC, Reis SA. Perception of adults’ smile esthetics among orthodontists, clinicians and laypeople. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Jan-Feb;20(1):40-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.1.040-044.oar. PMid:25741823.

Sharma PK, Sharma P. Dental Smile esthetics: the assessment and creation of the ideal smile. Semin Orthod. 2012 Sep;18(3):193-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2012.04.004.

Manjula WS, Sukumar MR, Kishorekumar S, Gnanashanmugam K, Mahalakshmi K. Smile: a review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015 Apr;7(5 Suppl 1):273. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.155951. PMid:26015730.

Aphale H, Kumar S, Gayake P, Sahane D, Mahajan H. The ideal smile and its characteristics. International Journal of Dental Practice & Medical Sciences. 2012;1(1):1-6.

Izraelewicz-Djebali E, Chabre C. Gummy smile: orthodontic or surgical treatment? J. Dentofacial Anom Orthod. 2015;18(1):102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/odfen/2014036.

Mc Laren EA, Culp L. Smile analysis: the photoshop smile sesign technique. Part I. J Cosmet Dent. 2013;29(1):94-108.

Machado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Jul-Aug;19(4):136-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.136-157.sar. PMid:25279532.

Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Influence of gingival display on smile aesthetics in Japanese. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Dec;32(6):633-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq013. PMid:20403956.

Kokich VO, Asuman Kiyak H, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x. PMid:10825866.

Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):141-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.017. PMid:16905057.

Jahanbin A, Pezeshkirad H. The effects of upper of lip height on smile esthetics perception in normal occlusion and nonextraction, orthodontically treatment females. Indian J Dent Res. 2008 Jul-Sep;19(3):204-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.42951. PMid:18797095.

Işıksal E, Hazar S, Akyalçin S. Smile esthetics: perception a comparison of treated and untreated smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jan;129(1):8-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.004. PMid:16443472.

Pithon MM, Santos AM, Campos MS, Couto FS, Santos AF, Coqueiro RS, et al. Perception of laypersons dental professionals and students as regards the aesthetic impact of gingival plastic surgery. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Apr;36(2):173-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt020. PMid:24663008.

Suzuki L, Machado A, Bittencourt M. Perceptions of gingival display aesthetics among orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons and laypersons. Rev Odonto Ciênc. 2009;24(4):367-71.

Guo J, Gong H, Tian W, Tang W, Bai D. Alteration of gingival exposure and its aesthetics effect. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 May;22(3):909-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31820f7f7a. PMid:21558927.

Geron S, Atalia W. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod. 2005 Sep;75(5):778-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[778:IOSOTP]2.0.CO;2. PMid:16283815.

Musskopf ML, Rocha JM, Rosing CK. Perception of smile esthetics varies between patients and dental professionals when recession defects are present. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(4):385-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302223. PMid:24173262.
 

5af090790e8825dc70e461c2 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections