Effect of Lip Position and Gingival Display on Smile and Esthetics As Perceived by College Students with Different Educational Backgrounds

Overview

Journal Clin Cosmet Investig Dent

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Date 2013 Nov 9

PMID 24204173

Citations 17

Authors

Khalid H Zawawi

Ghadah A Malki

Mohammad S Al-Zahrani

Yaser M Alkhiary

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of education on the perception of female college students on the effect of lip position and gingival display upon smiling and esthetics.

Methods: A photograph of a smiling subject was altered to show varying degrees of gingival display. Female students, who were studying in different colleges, assessed a total of five images, using a numerical rating scale.

Results: A total of 440 college students from eight educational faculties (dentistry, dental assistants, medicine, medical technology, nursing, science, arts, and pharmacology) participated in this study. There was no difference found between students' ratings of the altered images (P<0.05). The perception of a gummy smile was found to be similar among the participants. There was agreement between all participants that 2 mm of gingival display was the most attractive smile, while a 4 mm covering of the teeth by the upper lip was the least attractive.

Conclusion: Educational influence did not have an effect of the perception of a gummy smile.

Citing Articles

Anterior Open Bite Treated With Palatal Crib and Myofunctional Therapy: A Case Report.

Chandel R, Pande M, Yeluri R, Pankey N, Khubchandani M Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e63549.

PMID: 39086779 PMC: 11290386. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.63549.

Laypersons' Assessment of Smile Esthetics in Young Individuals in Ha'il, Saudi Arabia.

Aljanakh M, Alshammari W, Aljameel K, Alshammari A, Altheban I, Alzaid N Cureus. 2024; 16(5):e60726.

PMID: 38903316 PMC: 11187522. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60726.

Attractive combinations of female gingival displays, buccal corridor sizes, and facial heights according to orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople of different ages and sexes: a psychometric study.

Niknam O, Yousefi Hafshejani S, Rakhshan V Head Face Med. 2024; 20(1):17.

PMID: 38459597 PMC: 10921605. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-024-00417-1.

Is There a Correlation between Gingival Display and Incisal Inclination in a Gummy Smile? Study on Cephalometric Parameters.

Impellizzeri A, Palmigiani R, Horodynski M, Dalfonso T, Polimeni A, De Stefano A Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(3).

PMID: 36766919 PMC: 9914089. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11030344.

Lip Repositioning, a Solution for Gummy Smile.

Haddadi P, Zare H, Azadikhah A Front Dent. 2022; 18:15.

PMID: 35965696 PMC: 9355900. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v18i15.6140.

References

Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M . The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24(2):199-204. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/24.2.199. View

Tjan A, Miller G, The J . Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51(1):24-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(84)80097-9. View

Kokich V, Kokich V, Kiyak H . Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(2):141-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.017. View

Gill D, Naini F, Tredwin C . Smile aesthetics. Dent Update. 2007; 34(3):152-4, 157-8. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2007.34.3.152. View

Magnusson T, List T, Helkimo M . Self-assessment of pain and discomfort in patients with temporomandibular disorders: a comparison of five different scales with respect to their precision and sensitivity as well as their capacity to register memory of pain and discomfort. J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22(8):549-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb01048.x. View

Newton J, Prabhu N, Robinson P . The impact of dental appearance on the appraisal of personal characteristics. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16(4):429-34. View

Al-Habahbeh R, Al-Shammout R, Al-Jabrah O, Al-Omari F . The effect of gender on tooth and gingival display in the anterior region at rest and during smiling. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2010; 4(4):382-95. View

Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M . The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod. 1992; 62(2):91-100; discussion 101-2. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1992)062<0091:TGSL>2.0.CO;2. View

Al-Jabrah O, Al-Shammout R, El-Naji W, Al-Ajarmeh M, Al-Quran A . Gender differences in the amount of gingival display during smiling using two intraoral dental biometric measurements. J Prosthodont. 2010; 19(4):286-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00562.x. View

10.

Jorgensen M, Nowzari H . Aesthetic crown lengthening. Periodontol 2000. 2001; 27:45-58. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0757.2001.027001045.x. View

11.

Takei H, Bevilacqua F, Cooney J . Surgical crown lengthening of the maxillary anterior dentition: aesthetic considerations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 2000; 11(5):639-44; quiz 646. View

12.

Kokich Jr V, Kiyak H, Shapiro P . Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 2000; 11(6):311-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x. View

13.

York J, Holtzman J . Facial attractiveness and the aged. Spec Care Dentist. 2002; 19(2):84-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1999.tb01374.x. View

14.

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; 75(5):778-84. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[778:IOSOTP]2.0.CO;2. View

15.

Silberberg N, Goldstein M, Smidt A . Excessive gingival display--etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities. Quintessence Int. 2009; 40(10):809-18. View

16.

Jornung J, Fardal O . Perceptions of patients' smiles: a comparison of patients' and dentists' opinions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(12):1544-53. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0103. View

17.

Qualtrough A, Burke F . A look at dental esthetics. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25(1):7-14. View