Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지

Perception of maxillary anterior esthetics by dental professionals and lay people and topographical tooth-gingiva interface

한국인의 상악 전치부 심미 인지 선호도 및 정상 치은의 형태 분포

  • An, Ki-Yeon (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Lee, Ju-Youn (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Jo (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Jeom-Il (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 안기연 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치주과학 교실) ;
  • 이주연 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치주과학 교실) ;
  • 김성조 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치주과학 교실) ;
  • 최점일 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치주과학 교실)
  • Published : 2006.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : This study was designed 1) to compare the perception of dental professionals and lay people with respect to minor variations in maxillary anterior tooth size and alignment and their relation to the surrounding soft tissues, and 2) to evaluate the normal tooth-gingiva topographical relationships in periodontally healthy young subjects, Materials and methods : Maxillary anterior teeth were intentionally diagrammed in varying degree of deviation with respect to one of three common anterior esthetic discrepancies including variations in crown length, shape of gingival margin, and length of interproximal contact, 17 images were generated to be preferentially selected by 2 groups consisting of dental professionals and lay people (total of 740). Smiling photographs of 120 dental students who had healthy periodontium were taken and the photographic images were analyzed to be classified as 17 kinds of altered image groups. Results : The results demonstrated noticeable difference between the varying levels of discrepancy. Both group preferred gingival margin of lateral incisor to be 0.5mm lower than that of central incisor. Lay people preferred the gingival margin shape that has 2/9 horizontal component of the crown width, while dental professionals preferred the gingival margin shape that has 1/9 horizontal component of the crown width. Lay people preferred longer length of the interproximal contact (two thirds of the crown length), whereas dental professionals preferred shorter length of the interproximal contact (half of the crown length). Photographic analysis of normal esthetic gingival topography revealed 2/9 horizontal component and short length of the interproximal contact which was of the hybrid nature of the preferences shared by lay people and dental professionals. Conclusion: The results of this study show that dental professionals and lay people demonstrated significant difference in their preference of dental esthetic components, which may then influence the decision making process by dental professionals with respect to designing the anterior esthetic gingival line.

Keywords

References

  1. Moskowitz ME., Nayyar A. Determinants of dental esthetics : A rationale for smile analysis and treatment. Compendium Continuing Education Dentistry 1995;16: 1164-1186
  2. Miller CJ. The smile line as a guide to anterior esthetics. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:157-164
  3. Katz RV. Relationships between eight orthodontic indices and an oral self-image satisfaction scale. Am J Orthod 1978;73: 328-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90139-2
  4. Graber LW., Lucker LW. Dental esthetic self-evaluation and satisfaction. Am J Orthod 1980;77:163-173 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90004-4
  5. Espeland LV. , Stenvik A. Perception of personal dental appearance in young adults : relationship between occlusion, awareness and satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:234-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70060-A
  6. Burden DJ., Pine CM. Self-perception of malocclusion among adolescents. Community Dent Health 1995:12:89-92
  7. Vallittu PK., Vallitu ASJ., Lassila VP. Dental aesthetics : a survey of attitudes in different groups of patients. J Dent 1996; 24:335-338 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00079-8
  8. Kokich VO Jr., Kiyak HA., Shapiro PA Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-324 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x
  9. 우이형. 전치부 심미적 보철에 관하여. 대한치주과학회지 1991;29:746-751
  10. 정민영, 임성빔, 정진형. 상악 전치부 치은선의 평균치에 관한 연구. 대한치주과학회지 2004; 34(1):19-28
  11. Ahmad I. Geometric considerations in anterior dental aesthetics restorative principles. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1998;10:813-822
  12. Kokich VG. Esthetics : The orthodonticperiodontic restorative connection Semin Orthod 1996;2:21-30
  13. Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists' and patients' concepts. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;100:345-352 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0093
  14. LaVacca MI., Tarnow DP., Cisneros GJ. Interdental papilla length and the perception of aesthetics. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17:405-412
  15. Kurth J., Kokich VG. Open gingival embrasures after orthodontic treatment in adults : prevalence and etiology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:116-123 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.114831
  16. Kurt M.A, Rolf G.B., Thomas McKinney Tooth shape preferences in an esthetic smile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:458-465 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.045
  17. Chalifoux PR. Perception of esthetics : factors that affect smile design. J Esthet Dent 1996;8: 189-192 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1996.tb00424.x
  18. Flores-Mir C.,Silva E., Barriga MI., Lagravere MO., Major PW, Lay person's perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Ortho 2004;31:204-209 https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225022416
  19. Johnston DC., Burden DJ., Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:517-522 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.5.517