Original Article

Influence of Smile Arc on Esthetic Perception in Relation to Gingival Display: A Cross-Sectional Study on an Iranian Population

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the Iranian’s perception of smile arc esthetics and its relationship with gingival display.

Materials and Methods: Two sets of digitally-altered images of a female and a male model were presented to orthodontists and laypeople. Sixteen images with four different smile arcs (including reverse, flat, consonant, and exaggerated) in combination with four gingival display values (-4mm, -2mm, 0mm, and +2mm) were displayed in each set, sorted by gingival display. The raters were asked to rank the smile arcs from the most attractive (1) to the least attractive (4) for each amount of gingival display. The Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed to statistically analyze the relationship of gingival display with smile arc esthetics.

Results: Totally, 200 laypeople and 22 orthodontists participated in this study. Laypeople preferred flat smile arcs, and orthodontists believed that flat and consonant arcs were the most attractive in all gingival display values for female and male smiles. Reverse arc was mostly disliked in lower amounts of gingival display, and excessive arc was mostly disregarded in higher amounts of gingival display.

Conclusion: As the preferred smile arcs were flat and consonant types regardless of the amount of gingival display, and reverse and exaggerated arcs were ranked the lowest in lower and upper extremes of gingival display, respectively, it may be concluded that the relationship between the gingival display and smile arc esthetics is more significant when considering unattractiveness.

1. Lin F, Ren M, Yao L, He Y, Guo J, Ye Q. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Sep;150(3):476-82.
2. Micu M, Carstairs C. From improving egos to perfecting smiles: orthodontics and psychology, 1945-2000. Can Bull Med Hist. 2018 Fall;35(2):309-36.
3. Azimi M, Dinparvar M, Teimourian H, Farhadian M. Evaluating recurring esthetic dental proportion (RED) and golden proportion in natural dentition. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2016 Feb;9(1):e30267.
4. Lukez A, Pavlic A, Trinajstic Zrinski M, Spalj S. The unique contribution of elements of smile aesthetics to psychosocial well-being. J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Apr;42(4):275-81.
5. Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Costa ACS, Ferreira MC, Bramante FS, Fialho MPN, Gurgel JA. Comparison of gingival display in smile attractiveness among restorative dentists, orthodontists, prosthodontists, periodontists, and laypeople. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Feb;123(2):314-21.
6. Melo M, Ata-Ali J, Ata-Ali F, Bulsei M, Grella P, Cobo T, et al. Evaluation of the maxillary midline, curve of the upper lip, smile line and tooth shape: a prospective study of 140 Caucasian patients. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Feb;20(1):42.
7. 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 Jan;81(1):153-61.
8. Parrini S, Rossini G, Castroflorio T, Fortini A, Deregibus A, Debernardi C. Laypeople's perceptions of frontal smile esthetics: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Nov;150(5):740-50.
9. Kaya B, Uyar R. Influence on smile attractiveness of the smile arc in conjunction with gingival display. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Oct;144(4):541-7.
10. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod. 2006 Jul;76(4):557-63.
11. Rodrigues Cde D, Magnani R, Machado MS, Oliveira OB. The perception of smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod. 2009 Jul;79(4):634-9.
12. Schabel BJ, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. Q-sort assessment vs visual analog scale in the evaluation of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4 Suppl):S61-71
13. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992 Aug;20(4):214-20.
14. McNamara L, McNamara Jr JA, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard-and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2008 Apr 1;133(4):491-9.
15. 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 Apr;133(4):515-23.
16. Badran SA, Mustafa M. A comparison between laypeople and orthodontists in evaluating the effect of buccal corridor and smile arc on smile esthetics. J World Fed Orthod. 2013 Sep;2(3):e123-e126.
17. Almanea R, Modimigh A, Almogren F, Alhazzani E. Perception of smile attractiveness among orthodontists, restorative dentists, and laypersons in Saudi Arabia. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Jan-Feb;22(1):69-75.
18. Saffarpour A, Ghavam M, Saffarpour A, Dayani R, Fard MJ. Perception of laypeople and dental professionals of smile esthetics. J Dent (Tehran). 2016 Mar;13(2):85-91.
19. Gul-e-Erum, Fida M. Changes in smile parameters as perceived by orthodontists, dentists, artists, and laypeople. World J Orthod. 2008 Summer;9(2):132-40.
20. 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 Jan;81(1):153-61.
European population. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Dec;128(6):1336-41.
21. Hassan A, Barber SJ. The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cognitive research: principles and implications. 2021 May 13;6(1):38.
22. Bonakdarchian M, Goldib F, Nikzad SH. Frequency of smile indices among students of Isfahan dental school. J Isfahan Dent Sch. 2009;4(4):185-91.
23. Machado AW, McComb RW, Moon W, Gandini Jr 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 Dec;25(6):392-401.
24. Parekh S, Fields HW, Beck FM, Rosenstiel SF. The acceptability of variations in smile arc and buccal corridor space. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007 Feb;10(1):15-21.
25 Gaikwad S, Kaur H, Vaz AC, Singh B, Taneja L, Vinod KS, et al. Influence of smile arc and buccal corridors on facial attractiveness: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Sep;10(9):ZC20-3.
26. Chotimah C, Utomo SH, Purbiati M. Differences between male and female adolescents in the smile aesthetics perceptions regarding smile arc, gingival display,and buccal corridor. J Int Dent Med Res. 2017;10:481-5.
27. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):748-53.
IssueVol 22 (Continuously Published Article-Based) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article
Keywords
Esthetics Dental Perception Smiling
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Mahmoudzadeh M, Farhadian M, Ahmadpour Y, Salehzadeh M. Influence of Smile Arc on Esthetic Perception in Relation to Gingival Display: A Cross-Sectional Study on an Iranian Population. Front Dent. 2025;22.