<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Objective</h3>
<p>The present study aimed to determine the influence of gingival display on smile perception of adult patients seeking dental treatment.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Materials and methods</h3>
<p>A smiling photograph was digitally modified to simulate gingival exposures from -4 mm to +4 mm, each in 2 mm increments. Using a validated questionnaire, 117 subjects were recruited and asked to rate the attractiveness of the smile displayed by the photographs. Friedman tests were applied to compare the perceptions of the overall subjects in addition to subjects within each category. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare perceptions between the genders, different ages, and ethnicity. Statistical significance was set at P &lt; 0.05.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>The most aesthetic gingival display was at -2 mm and the least aesthetic at -4 mm among all subjects. Females were more critical in evaluating smiles than males. Subjects 50 years or older and the Chinese ethnicity were less sensitive to the range of gingival displays.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>Smile perception of varying gingival display among adult laypeople was found to be the most aesthetic at -2 mm, least aesthetic at -4 mm and was influenced by gender, age, and ethnicity.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Objective
The present study aimed to determine the influence of gingival display on smile perception of adult patients seeking dental treatment.


Materials and methods
A smiling photograph was digitally modified to simulate gingival exposures from -4 mm to +4 mm, each in 2 mm increments. Using a validated questionnaire, 117 subjects were recruited and asked to rate the attractiveness of the smile displayed by the photographs. Friedman tests were applied to compare the perceptions of the overall subjects in addition to subjects within each category. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare perceptions between the genders, different ages, and ethnicity. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.


Results
The most aesthetic gingival display was at -2 mm and the least aesthetic at -4 mm among all subjects. Females were more critical in evaluating smiles than males. Subjects 50 years or older and the Chinese ethnicity were less sensitive to the range of gingival displays.


Conclusions
Smile perception of varying gingival display among adult laypeople was found to be the most aesthetic at -2 mm, least aesthetic at -4 mm and was influenced by gender, age, and ethnicity.

Aesthetic perception of gingival display on smiling among laypeople seeking dental treatment

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Objective
The present study aimed to determine the influence of gingival display on smile perception of adult patients seeking dental treatment.


Materials...

Demographic	Category	Frequency (n = 117)	Percentage
Gender	Male	47	40.1
	Female	70	59.9
Age	18–30 years old	32	27.4
	31–49 years old	55	47.0
	≥ 50 years old	30	25.6
Ethnicity	Malay	81	69.2
	Chinese	21	17.9
	Indian	12	10.3
	Others	3	2.6

Gingival display	Male	Female	P-value
-4 mm	5.0	4.0	0.017*
-2 mm	6.0	5.0	0.088
0 mm	5.0	5.0	0.027*
+2 mm	6.0	5.0	0.006*
+4 mm	5.0	5.0	0.383
P value	<0.001^†	<0.001^†

Gingival display	Median
-4 mm	4.0
-2 mm	6.0
0 mm	5.0
+2 mm	5.0
+4 mm	5.0
P value	<0.001*

Gingival display	Malay	Chinese	Indian	Others	P-value
-4 mm	4.00	6.00	4.50	4.00	0.245
-2 mm	6.00	6.00	4.50	4.00	0.039*
0 mm	5.00	6.00	5.00	4.00	0.257
+2 mm	5.00	6.00	5.50	4.00	0.316
+4 mm	5.00	6.00	4.50	3.00	0.072
P value	<0.001^†	0.018^†	0.661	0.034^†

Gingival display	18 – 30	31 – 49	≥ 50	P value
-4 mm	5.00	4.00	5.00	0.087
-2 mm	6.00	6.00	5.50	0.256
0 mm	6.00	5.00	5.00	0.119
+2 mm	6.00	5.00	6.00	0.037*
+4 mm	5.00	5.00	5.00	0.220
P value	0.011^†	<0.001^†	0.204

Aesthetic perception of gingival display on smiling among laypeople seeking dental treatment

Publié en ligne: 05 févr. 2024

Pages: 136 - 144

Reçu: 01 août 2023

Accepté: 01 nov. 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2023-0036

© 2023 Jonathan Jun Xian Yuen et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Demographic distribution of the subjects

Median of the scores considering different genders and levels of gingival display

Median scores for each level of gingival display for all the subjects

Median of the scores considering different ethnicity groups and levels of gingival display

Median of the scores considering different age groups and levels of gingival display