[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
:: Volume 31, Issue 1 (1-2019) ::
J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2019, 31(1): 21-25 Back to browse issues page
Esthetic Perception of Recurring Esthetic Dental Proportion in Different Lip Line Positions Among Lay People
Parham Pedram1, Hamid Kermanshah2, Reza Nejatbakhsh3, Ladan Ranjbar Omrani 4, Shiva Rafiezadeh5
1- PhD Candidate of Dental Biomaterials, Department of Dental Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sci-ences, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Orthodontist, Private Practice, Tabriz, Iran
4- Associate Professor, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , ladanomrani@yahoo.com
5- Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
Abstract:   (648 Views)
Background and Aim: The proportion of smile is a useful tool for creating geometric smiles which are a critical aspect in esthetic dentistry. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of lip line position on acceptable Recurring Esthetic Dental (RED) proportion among lay people.
Materials and Methods: A photograph of pose smile of a young female was taken. The position of the lip was changed by Adobe Photoshop CS6 software within three positions (low, medium, and high). Then, we created three RED proportions (54%, 62%, and 70%) for each lip line position. The photographs were ranked from most to least attractive (one to nine) by 40 lay people (20 females and 20 males) with a mean age of 19.4 years. Data were collected and analyzed using Friedman test. Pairwise comparisons were made using Bonferroni correction. The impact of gender on the ratings was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results: In the medium lip line group, all three proportions had approximately the same preference rates. The 54% proportion was the least attractive one in the high lip line group (mean=6.819), and the 70% proportion was the least attractive one in the low lip line group (mean=6.881).
Conclusion: The acceptable RED proportion cannot be evaluated without consideration of other factors such as lip line position. Esthetics is the result of a harmonious balance between different elements.
Keywords: Dental Esthetic, Smiling, Dental Photography
Full-Text [PDF 351 kb]   (183 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Restorative Dentistry
1. Bhuvaneswaran M. Principles of smile design. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Oct-Dec;13(4):225-232.
2. Thomas M, Reddy R, Reddy BJ. Perception differences of altered dental esthetics by dental professionals and laypersons. Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;22(2):242-7.
3. Rossetti A, De Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. The role of the golden proportion in the evaluation of facial esthetics. Angle Or-thod. 2013 Sep;83(5):801-8.
4. Miller AG. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychon Sci. 1970 Oct; 19 (4):241-243.
5. Goldstein RE. Study of need for esthetics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1969 Jun;21(6):589-98.
6. Charruel S, Perez C, Foti B, Camps J, Monnet-Corti V. Gingival contour assessment: clinical parameters useful for esthetic diagnosis and treatment. J Periodontol. 2008 May;79(5):795-801.
7. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Comparison of the influences of buccal corridors on smile esthetics between Koreans and Japanese. Orthod Waves. 2009 Dec;68(4):166-70.
8. McLeod C, Fields HW, Hechter F, Wiltshire W, Rody W Jr, Christensen J. Esthetics and smile characteristics evaluated by laypersons. Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):198-205.
9. Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie J. Impact of digital prosthodontic planning on dental esthetics: Biometric analysis of esthetic parameters. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jan; 115 (1):57-64.
10. Magne P, Gallucci GO, Belser UC. Anatomic crown width/length ratios of unworn and worn maxillary teeth in white subjects. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 May;89(5):453-61.
11. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Schols J, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile line assessment comparing quantitative measurement and visual estimation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):174-80.
12. Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepan-cies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Or-thod. 1999 Oct;21(5):517-22.
13. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod. 2006 Jul;76(4):557-63.
14. Ker AJ, Chan R, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson’s perspective: a computer-based survey study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct; 139(10):1318-27.
15. Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG. Dentists' preferences of anterior tooth proportion--a web‐based study. J Prosthodont. 2000 Sep; 9(3): 123-36.
16. Qadri S, Parkin NA, Benson PE. Space closing versus space opening for bilateral missing upper laterals - aesthetic judgments of laypeople: a web-based survey. J Orthod. 2016 Jun;43(2):137-46.
17. Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Naylor WP, Maveli TC. Esthetic smile preferences and the orientation of the maxillary occlusal plane. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Dec;108(6):354-61.
18. Pitel ML, Raley‐Susman KM, Rubinov A. Pref-erences of Lay Persons and Dental Professionals Regarding the Recurring Esthetic Dental Proportion. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr;28(2):102-9.
19. Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, Kern M. As-sessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Apr;113(2):159-65.
20. Ahmad I. Anterior dental aesthetics: Dental perspective. Br Dent J. 2005 Aug 13;199(3):135-41.
21. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic fac-tors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Jan; 51 (1):24-8.
22. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Some vertical lineaments of lip position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Jun;101(6):519-24.
23. Azimi M, Dinparvar M, Teimourian H, Farhadian M. Evaluating recurring esthetic den-tal proportion (RED) and golden proportion in natural dentition. Avicenna J Dent Res. In Press (In Press): e30267.
24. Ward DH. Proportional smile design using the recurring esthetic dental (red) proportion. Dent Clin North Am. 2001 Jan;45(1):143-54.
25. Saha MK, Khatri M, Saha SG, Dubey S, Saxena D, Vijaywargiya N, et al. Perception of Ac-ceptable Range of Smiles by Specialists, General Dentists and Lay Persons and Evalua-tion of Different Aesthetic Paradigms. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Feb;11(2):ZC25-ZC28.
26. 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 Sep;31(3):204-9; discussion 201.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Pedram P, Kermanshah H, Nejatbakhsh R, Ranjbar Omrani L, Rafiezadeh S. Esthetic Perception of Recurring Esthetic Dental Proportion in Different Lip Line Positions Among Lay People . J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2019; 31 (1) :21-25
URL: http://jidai.ir/article-1-2003-en.html

Volume 31, Issue 1 (1-2019) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Islamic Dental Association of Iran


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 4030