Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rating of smile attractiveness of patients finished to the American Board of Orthodontics standards

Bewertung der Attraktivität des Lächelns von nach ABO(American Board of Orthodontics)-Standard behandelten Patienten

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study collected 68 smiling photos of cases taken to American Board of Orthodontics clinical exam and were considered as successfully treated.

Materials and methods

A panel of 52 raters from different specialties and laypeople were asked to rate the smile attractiveness on a scale from 1–10 and to also choose what components made the smile less attractive. Simple descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean, standard deviations, and quartiles of the smile attractiveness. Multilinear regression (MLR) analysis was used to examine the relationship of smile attractiveness when the variables of age, professional experience, and gender of the raters were considered. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was created to correlate the association between smile attractiveness and the perfect smile.

Results

The mean rating of each picture ranged from 3.42 ± 1.83 (least attractive smile) to 8.46 ± 1.59 (most attractive smile). The overall mean for smile attractiveness was 6.23 ± 1.09; additionally, it was found that problematic teeth, gum, and lips reduce the smile attractiveness score by 1.7, 1.7, and 1.2, respectively.

Conclusion

The study showed that only 2 out of 68 American Board of Orthodontics treatment finishes had an attractive and perfect smile.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Diese Studie sammelte 68 Fotos von lächelnden Patienten, die nach klinischer Prüfung durch das American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) als erfolgreich behandelt betrachtet wurden.

Materialien und Methoden

Ein Panel von 52 Bewertenden, Mediziner verschiedener Fachrichtungen und Laien, wurde gebeten, die Attraktivität des Lächelns auf einer Skala von 1‑10 zu bewerten und auch anzugeben, welche Komponenten das Lächeln weniger attraktiv machen. Einfache deskriptive Statistiken wurden für den Mittelwert, die Standardabweichungen und die Quartilen verwendet. Die multilineare Regressionsanalyse (MLR) wurde verwendet, um die Beziehung der Lächeln-Attraktivität zu untersuchen, wenn die Variablen Alter, Berufserfahrung und Geschlecht der Bewertenden berücksichtigt wurden. Zur Korrelation des Zusammenhangs zwischen der Attraktivität des Lächelns und dem perfekten Lächeln wurde eine ROC(„receiver operating characteristic“)-Kurve erstellt.

Ergebnisse

Die durchschnittliche Bewertung der einzelnen Bilder reichte von 3,42 ± 1,83 (am wenigsten attraktives Lächeln) bis 8,46 ± 1,59 (attraktivstes Lächeln). Der Gesamtmittelwert für die Attraktivität des Lächelns lag bei 6,23 ± 1,09; zusätzlich wurde festgestellt, dass problematische Zähne, Zahnfleisch und Lippen den Wert für die Attraktivität des Lächelns um 1,7, 1,7 bzw. 1,2 reduzieren.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Studie zeigte, dass lediglich 2 von 68 nach ABO-Standards erfolgreich behandelten Patienten ein attraktives und perfektes Lächeln hatten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3
Fig. 4 Abb. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hulsey CM (1970) An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 57(2):132–144

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ackerman MB, Ackerman JL (2002) Smile analysis and design in the digital era. J Clin Orthod 36(4):221–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Christou T, Betlej A, Aswad N, Ogdon D, Kau CH (2019) Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic treatment on smile esthetics: a systematic review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 11:89–101

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Machado AW, McComb RW, Moon W, Gandini LG Jr. (2013) Influence of the vertical position of maxillary central incisors on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. J Esthet Restor Dent 25(6):392–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA (2006) Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130(2):141–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sadowsky SJ (2006) An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 96(6):433–442

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunn WJ, Murchison DF, Broome JC (1996) Esthetics: patients’ perceptions of dental attractiveness. J Prosthodont 5(3):166–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heravi F, Rashed R, Abachizadeh H (2011) Esthetic preferences for the shape of anterior teeth in a posed smile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(6):806–814

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ong E, Brown RA, Richmond S (2006) Peer assessment of dental attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130(2):163–169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lombardi RE (1973) The principles of visual perception and their clinical application to denture esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 29(4):358–382

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ward DH (2007) A study of dentists’ preferred maxillary anterior tooth width proportions: comparing the recurring esthetic dental proportion to other mathematical and naturally occurring proportions. J Esthet Restor Dent 19(6):324–337 (discussion 338–329)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frush JP, Fisher RD (1958) The dynesthetic interpretation of the dentogenic concept. J Prosthet Dent 8(4):558–581

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sarver DM (2001) The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 120(2):98–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhuvaneswaran M (2010) Principles of smile design. J Conserv Dent 13(4):225–232

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sabri R (2005) The eight components of a balanced smile. J Clin Orthod 39(3):155–167 (quiz 154)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McNamara L, McNamara JA Jr., Ackerman MB, Baccetti T (2008) Hard- and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133(4):491–499

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Angus S (2019) Oxford dictionary of English

  18. Celebi AA, Lee SH, Kau CH (2017) Size discrepancies in molars and first key to optimal occlusion. Eur J Dent 11(2):250–252

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Andrews LF (1972) The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 62(3):296–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr., Bills ED (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114(5):589–599

    Google Scholar 

  21. Matthews TG (1978) The anatomy of a smile. J Prosthet Dent 39(2):128–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ekman P (1973) Darwin and facial expression a century of research in review. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ackerman JL, Ackerman MB, Brensinger CM, Landis JR (1998) A morphometric analysis of the posed smile. Clin Orthod Res 1(1):2–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rigsbee OH, Sperry TP, BeGole EA (1988) The influence of facial animation on smile characteristics. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 3(4):233–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE (2005) Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127(2):208–213 (quiz 261)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TM, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JR (2011) Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 81(1):153–161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akyalcin S, Frels LK, English JD, Laman S (2014) Analysis of smile esthetics in American Board of Orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod 84(3):486–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schabel BJ, McNamara JA, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Jamieson SA (2008) The relationship between posttreatment smile esthetics and the ABO Objective Grading System. Angle Orthod 78(4):579–584

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Batra P, Daing A, Azam I, Miglani R, Bhardwaj A (2018) Impact of altered gingival characteristics on smile esthetics: Laypersons’ perspectives by Q sort methodology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 154(1):82–90.e82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dong JK, Jin TH, Cho HW, Oh SC (1999) The esthetics of the smile: a review of some recent studies. Int J Prosthodont 12(1):9–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM (1999) The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 2(2):49–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sarver DM, Ackerman JL (2000) Orthodontics about face: the re-emergence of the esthetic paradigm. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 117(5):575–576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB (2003) Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124(2):116–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG (1984) Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 51(1):24–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kokich VO Jr., Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA (1999) Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 11(6):311–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sriphadungporn C, Chamnannidiadha N (2017) Perception of smile esthetics by laypeople of different ages. Prog Orthod 18(1):8

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Pithon MM, Santos AM, Viana de Andrade AC, Santos EM, Couto FS, da Silva Coqueiro R (2013) Perception of the esthetic impact of gingival smile on laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115(4):448–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodrigues Cde D, Magnani R, Machado MS, Oliveira OB (2009) The perception of smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 79(4):634–639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Geron S, Atalia W (2005) Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and Incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod 75(5):778–784

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zange SE, Ramos AL, Cuoghi OA, de Mendonca MR, Suguino R (2011) Perceptions of laypersons and orthodontists regarding the buccal corridor in long- and short-face individuals. Angle Orthod 81(1):86–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sarver DM (2015) Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148(3):380–386

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Oueis R, Waite PD, Wang J, Kau CH (2020) Orthodontic-Orthognathic Management of a patient with skeletal class II with bimaxillary protrusion, complicated by vertical maxillary excess: A multi-faceted case report of difficult treatment management issues. Int Orthod 18(1):178–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Veiszenbacher E, Wang J, Davis M, Waite PD, Borbely P, Kau CH (2019) Virtual surgical planning: Balancing esthetics, practicality, and anticipated stability in a complex Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 156(5):685–693

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sarver D (2011) The profession and business of orthodontics. Orthodontics (Chic) 12(3):173–175

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Orthodontic Department Funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Alabama Birmingham, 1919 7th Ave. South, 35294, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Chung How Kau, Terpsithea Christou & Tayem Abou-Saleh

  2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama Birmingham, ZRB 739 | 703 19th St. South, 35294, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Rong Bing Xie

Authors
  1. Chung How Kau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Terpsithea Christou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rong Bing Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tayem Abou-Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chung How Kau.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

C. H. Kau, T. Christou, R. B. Xie and T. Abou-Saleh declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants or on human tissue were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. IRB obtained under UAB-2018-MS-Ortho-01.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kau, C., Christou, T., Xie, R. et al. Rating of smile attractiveness of patients finished to the American Board of Orthodontics standards. J Orofac Orthop 81, 239–248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00228-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00228-4

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation