Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 3, July-September, p. 251–255

doi: 10.17219/dmp/109704

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

Effect of the interproximal contact level on the perception of smile esthetics

Wpływ miejsca kontaktu międzyzębowego na odbiór estetyki uśmiechu

Mohammad Ramadan Rayyan1,A,B,C,D,E,F

1 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Saudi Arabia


Background. Many dental and facial components affect smile esthetics, and dental professionals’ opinions regarding dental esthetics may not always coincide with the perceptions and expectations of the patients.
Objectives. This work is designed to determine the dimensions of the interproximal contact areas that are considered the most or least attractive according to a group of laypersons, dentists and technicians.
Material and Methods. Two photographs of female and male smiles showing a full smile were taken with a Nikon® camera and digitally altered using Adobe® Photoshop. The length of the interproximal contact areas was altered to generate 2 sets of images (3 images of the female and 3 images of the male smile in each set). A group of 40 laypersons, 40 dentists and 40 dental technicians were asked to select the most and the least attractive image in each set.
Results. An interproximal contact ratio of 50:40:30 [%] was the most attractive arrangement (40.00% and 38.33% for the female and male smiles, respectively). The ‘reversed’ ratio of 30:40:50 [%] was the least attractive to the participants (57.50% and 44.17% for the female and male smiles, respectively). There were differences in the rankings of the most and the least attractive smiles among the 3 groups of evaluators.
Conclusion. The ‘ideal’ interproximal contact ratio of 50:40:30 [%] is perceived to be the most attractive. However, the smile esthetics perception among dental professionals is not always in agreement with the perception of laypersons.

Key words

esthetics, dental, proximal, smile attractiveness

Słowa kluczowe

estetyka, zębowy, proksymalny, atrakcyjność uśmiechu

References (16)

  1. Nomura S, Freitas KMS, Silva PPCD, et al. Evaluation of the attractiveness of different gingival zeniths in smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23(5):47–57.
  2. Omar H, Tai YT. Perception of smile esthetics among dental and nondental students. J Educ Ethics Dent. 2014;4(2):54–60.
  3. Carlsson GE, Wagner IV, Odman P, et al. An international comparative multicenter study of assessment of dental appearance using computer-aided image manipulation. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(3):246–254.
  4. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311–324.
  5. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: Asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(2):141–151.
  6. Foulger TE, Tredwin CJ, Gill DS, Moles DR. The influence of varying maxillary incisal edge embrasure space and interproximal contact area dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J. 2010;209(3):E4.
  7. Fonseca Jardim da Motta A, Nelson Mucha J, Gomes de Souza MM. Influence of certain tooth characteristics on the esthetic evaluation of a smile. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17(3):e1–e7.
  8. Cooper GE, Tredwin CJ, Cooper NT, Petrie A, Gill DS. The influence of maxillary central incisor height-to-width ratio on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J. 2012;212(12):589–599.
  9. Assad Duarte ME, Martins Machado R, Fonseca Jardim da Motta A, Nelson Mucha J, Trindade Motta A. Morphological simulation of different incisal embrasures: Perception of laypersons, orthodontic patients, general dentists and orthodontists. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(1):68–78.
  10. Al Taki A, Hamdan AM, Mustafa Z, Hassan M, Abu-Alhuda S. Smile esthetics: Impact of variations in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the maxillary lateral incisors. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(4):514–520.
  11. Sulikowski AV, Yoshida A. Three-dimensional management of dental proportions: A new aesthetic principle: “The frame of reference”. Quintessence Dent Technol. 2002;25:8–20.
  12. Stappert CF, Tarnow DP, Tan JH, Chu SJ. Proximal contact areas of the maxillary anterior dentition. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010;30(5):471–477.
  13. Morley J, Eubank J. Macroesthetic elements of smile design. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(1):39–45.
  14. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. Characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):515–523.
  15. Mollabashi V, Abolvardi M, Akhlaghian M, Ghaffari MI. Smile attractiveness perception regarding buccal corridor size among different facial types. Dent Med Probl. 2018;55(3):305–312.
  16. 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 1613–1614.