Esthetic impact of gingival plastic surgery from the dentistry students’ perspective

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the this study was to evaluate the perception of smile esthetics and alterations in cases of gingival plastic surgery for correction of a gummy smile, by means of alterations in smile photograph among dentistry degree students. Materials and Methods: A frontal smile photograph of a 40-year-old woman having normal occlusion was used with diverse compositions of gingival exposure level and crown length of maxillary teeth. The eight photographs were evaluated by 216 dentistry students in five class groups (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th classes). Results: The results revealed that almost all of the class’ students perceived differences between images, additionally, the highest percentage of students that answered “no difference” was 12% at 1^st class’ students. 1^st and 2^nd class’ students most liked photograph which is 2.5 mm gingival display and 3^rd class students liked two different photographs which are 2.5 mm gingival display and 2 mm gingival display whereas 4^th class students preferred two different photographs which are 1.5 mm gingival display and 1 mm gingival display, 5^th class students preferred photograph which is 1.5 mm gingival display as the most. Conclusion: Esthetic perception of smile improve as a student passes to higher study classes in terms of gingival exposure. The harmonious display of gingiva exhibits an important effect in the smile esthetics rather than reduced or excessive display.

Key words:

Clinical crown of maxillary anterior teeth - esthetics - perception - periodontal surgery - photography

• REFERENCES

• 1 Marchiori GE, Sodré LO, da Cunha TC, Torres FC, Rosário HD, Paranhos LR. Pleasantness of facial profile and its correlation with soft tissue cephalometric parameters: Perception of orthodontists and lay people. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 352-5
• 2 Flanary C. The psychology of appearance and psychological impact of surgical alteration of the face. In: Bell WH. editor. Modern Practice in Orthognathic and Reconstructive Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1992
• 3 Abraham A, George J, Peter E, Philip K, Chankramath R, Johns DA. et al. Establishment of a new relationship between posed smile width and lower facial height: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 394-9
• 4 An KY, Lee JY, Kim SJ, Choi JI. Perception of maxillary anterior esthetics by dental professionals and laypeople and survey of gingival topography in healthy young subjects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009; 29: 535-41
• 5 Ahmad I. Geometric considerations in anterior dental aesthetics: Restorative principles. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998; 10: 813-22
• 6 Garber DA, Salama MA. The aesthetic smile: Diagnosis and treatment. Periodontol 2000 1996; 11: 18-28
• 7 Claman L, Alfaro MA, Mercado A. An interdisciplinary approach for improved esthetic results in the anterior maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 1-5
• 8 Heravi F, Rashed R, Abachizadeh H. Esthetic preferences for the shape of anterior teeth in a posed smile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 806-14
• 9 McLeod C, Fields HW, Hechter F, Wiltshire W, Rody Jr. W, Christensen J. Esthetics and smile characteristics evaluated by laypersons. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 198-205
• 10 Pithon MM, Santos AM, Campos MS, Couto FS, dos Santos AF, Coqueiro RdaS. et al. Perception of laypersons and dental professionals and students as regards the aesthetic impact of gingival plastic surgery. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36: 173-8
• 11 Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Influence of gingival display on smile aesthetics in Japanese. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 633-7
• 12 Morley J, Eubank J. Macroesthetic elements of smile design. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132: 39-45
• 13 Monaco A, Streni O, Marci MC, Marzo G, Gatto R, Giannoni M. Gummy smile: Clinical parameters useful for diagnosis and therapeutical approach. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004; 29: 19-25
• 14 Dong JK, Jin TH, Cho HW, Oh SC. The esthetics of the smile: A review of some recent studies. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 9-19
• 15 España P, Tarazona B, Paredes V. Smile esthetics from odontology students’ perspectives. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 214-24
• 16 Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF. The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007; 10: 15-21
• 17 Wolfart S, Brunzel S, Freitag S, Kern M. Assessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor angulation. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 150-4
• 18 Correa BD, Vieira BittencourtMA, Machado AW. Influence of maxillary canine gingival margin asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 55-63
• 19 Cotrim ER, Vasconcelos JúniorÁV, Haddad AC, Reis SA. Perception of adults’ smile esthetics among orthodontists, clinicians and laypeople. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20: 40-4
• 20 Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Schols J, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile line assessment comparing quantitative measurement and visual estimation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 174-80
• 21 Zawawi KH, Malki GA, Al-Zahrani MS, Alkhiary YM. Effect of lip position and gingival display on smile and esthetics as perceived by college students with different educational backgrounds. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013; 5: 77-80
• 22 Malkinson S, Waldrop TC, Gunsolley JC, Lanning SK, Sabatini R. The effect of esthetic crown lengthening on perceptions of a patient's attractiveness, friendliness, trustworthiness, intelligence, and self-confidence. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 1126-33