Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 3, July-September, p. 305–312

doi: 10.17219/dmp/92634

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Smile attractiveness perception regarding buccal corridor size among different facial types

Percepcja atrakcyjności uśmiechu w zależności od wielkości korytarza policzkowego w różnych typach twarzy

Vahid Mollabashi1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Masoud Abolvardi1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Marzieh Akhlaghian2,B,D,F, Mohammad Ibrahim Ghaffari3,C

1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Abstract

Background. The width of the buccal corridor (BC) is one of the factors affecting smile attractiveness.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of the BC size on the smile attractiveness of individuals with short, normal and long faces from the viewpoint of laypersons, general dentists and orthodontists.
Material and Methods. Smiling photographs of male and female subjects who met the inclusion criteria were digitally altered to create 3 BC sizes (narrow: 2%; normal: 15%; wide: 28%) and 3 facial types defined by the facial index (FI) (short face: FI ≤ 83.9; normal face: 84.0 ≤ FI ≤ 87.9; long face: FI ≥ 88.0). Nine different combinations were made and the evaluators rated the overall attractiveness and acceptability of each smile on a 10-millimeter visual analog scale (VAS).
Results. A total of 53 raters (22 laypersons, 16 general dentists and 15 orthodontists) participated in this study. The orthodontists and general dentists had similar viewpoints and they preferred narrow and normal BCs over the wide ones in all facial types. Laypersons preferred normal BC for normal faces, while they did not distinguish different BCs in short faces.
Conclusion. Variations in the BC size affect smile attractiveness in different facial types and wide BCs are attributed to the least attractive smiles. Due to the different viewpoints of laypersons and professionals in this regard, there is no justification for expanding the maxillary arch to achieve more attractive smiles.

Key words

buccal corridor, smile attractiveness, facial type

Słowa kluczowe

korytarz policzkowy, atrakcyjność uśmiechu, kształt twarzy

References (37)

  1. Brown A, Knight T. Shifts in media images of women appearance and social status from 1960 to 2010: A content analysis of beauty advertisements in two Australian magazines. J Aging Stud. 2015;35:74–83.
  2. Jack RE, Schyns PG. The human face as a dynamic tool for social communication. Curr Biol. 2015;25(14):R621–634.
  3. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;24(3):285–290.
  4. Faure J, Bolender Y. Beauty judgment: Review of the literature [in French]. Orthod Fr. 2014;85(1):3–29.
  5. Heppt WJ, Vent J. The facial profile in the context of facial aesthetics. Facial Plast Surg. 2015;31(5):421–430.
  6. Tole N, Lajnert V, Kovacevic Pavicic D, Spalj S. Gender, age, and psychosocial context of the perception of facial esthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26(2):119–130.
  7. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(5):759–765.
  8. LaFrance M, Hecht MA, Paluck EL. The contingent smile: A meta-ana-lysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(2):305–334.
  9. Ackerman JL, Ackerman MB, Brensinger CM, Landis JR. A morphometric analysis of the posed smile. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1(1):2–11.
  10. Ahrari F, Heravi F, Rashed R, Zarrabi MJ, Setayesh Y. Which factors affect dental esthetics and smile attractiveness in orthodontically treated patients? J Dent (Tehran). 2015;12(7):491–503.
  11. Kaya B, Uyar R. The impact of occlusal plane cant along with gingival display on smile attractiveness. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2016;19(2):93–101.
  12. Machado AW, McComb RW, Moon W, Gandini LG. Influence of the vertical position of maxillary central incisors on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(6):392–401.
  13. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: The smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(2):98–111.
  14. Jenny J. A social perspective on need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Int Dent J. 1975;25(4):248–256.
  15. Johnston DJ, Hunt O, Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson M, Hepper P. The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(4):349–354.
  16. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2007:187,188.
  17. Zange SE, Ramos AL, Cuoghi OA, de Mendonça MR, Suguino R. Perceptions of laypersons and orthodontists regarding the buccal corridor in long- and short-face individuals. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):86–90.
  18. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 1. Evolution of the concept and dynamic records for smile capture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(1):4–12.
  19. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(2):116–127.
  20. McNamara JA. Maxillary transverse deficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(5):567–570.
  21. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res. 1999;2(2):49–52.
  22. Ackerman MB. Buccal smile corridors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(5):528–529.
  23. Ghafari JG. Emerging paradigms in orthodontics – an essay. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(5):573–580.
  24. Rittera DE, Gandini L, Pinto Ados S, Locks A. Esthetic influence of negative space in the buccal corridor during smiling. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(2):198–203.
  25. Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF. The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10(1):15–21.
  26. Maulik C, Nanda R. Dynamic smile analysis in young adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(3):307–315.
  27. Jørnung J, Fardal Ø. Perceptions of patients’ smiles: A comparison of patients’ and dentists’ opinions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(12):1544–1553;quiz 613,614.
  28. Springer NC, Chang C, Fields HW, et al. Smile esthetics from the layperson’s perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(1):e91–e101.
  29. Meyer AH, Woods MG, Manton DJ. Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 2: Attractiveness of the frontal facial smile in extraction and nonextraction outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(3):296–304.
  30. Ioi H, Kang S, Shimomura T, et al. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese and Korean orthodontists and orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(4):459–465.
  31. Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TM, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JR. Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):153–161.
  32. Grover N, Kapoor DN, Verma S, Bharadwaj P. Smile analysis in different facial patterns and its correlation with underlying hard tissues. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:28.
  33. Chou JC, Thompson GA, Aggarwal HA, Bosio JA, Irelan JP. Effect of occlusal vertical dimension on lip positions at smile. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):533–539.
  34. Williams RP, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo TG. Perceptions of midline deviations among different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):249–255.
  35. Oshagh M, Zarif NH, Bahramnia F. Evaluation of the effect of buccal corridor size on smile attractiveness. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2010;5(4):370–380.
  36. Pithon MM, Rocha KS, Costa BdN, et al. Perceptions of brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial individuals with regard to the buccal corridor in different facial types. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22(3):382–389.
  37. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(4):628–633.
© Wroclaw Medical University