Key Points
-
Highlights differences in perception of dental aesthetics between dentists, technicians and patients.
-
Stresses that patients are generally less concerned about dental appearance than dentists or technicians.
-
Suggests 82% is the most attractive width-to-height ratio for normal central incisors for the majority of patients.
Abstract
Objective To determine the influence of varying the width-to-height ratio of maxillary central incisors on perceived smile aesthetics.
Design Cross-sectional study.
Setting Postgraduate dental teaching hospital.
Methods A posed female smile was digitally modified using Adobe Photoshop®. Three images were created; central incisors with normal form, tooth wear and delayed apical migration. For each image the length of the teeth was altered to create a set of nine images with normal form (66% to 96% width-to-height ratios), and sets of five images with tooth wear and with delayed apical migration (78% to 96% ratios). The images in each set were ranked in order of most to least attractive by 32 dentists, 32 technicians and 32 patients.
Results An 82% width-to-height ratio was perceived as the most attractive for normal central incisors although there is variability in the responses. There is a definite trend towards the extremes of very long or very short teeth being less attractive. The very long central incisors, and those with tooth wear were perceived as unattractive. The patients rated fewer images from the tooth wear and delayed apical migration sets as unattractive compared to the dentists and technicians.
Conclusion The width-to-height ratios perceived as most attractive correspond with the higher end of ideal ratios proposed in the dental literature (75-80% width-to-height ratio). Significant differences exist between the aesthetic perceptions of dentists, technicians and patients and there is lack of agreement within each group, in particular within the patient group. The individual variability in patient response should be taken into account during treatment planning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Marzola R, Derbabian K, Donovan T E, Arcidiacono A . The science of communicating the art of aesthetic dentistry. Part 1: patient-dentist-patient communication. J Esthet Dent 2000; 12: 131–138.
Shaw W C. The influence of children's dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 399–415.
Olsson M, Lindhe J, Marinello C P . On the relationship between crown form and clinical features of the gingiva in adolescents. J Clin Periodontol 1993; 20: 570–577.
Magne P, Gallucci G O, Belser U C . Anatomic crown width/length ratios of unworn and worn maxillary teeth in white subjects. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 453–461.
Sterrett J D, Oliver T, Robinson F, Fortson W, Knaak B, Russell C M . Width/length ratios of normal clinical crowns of the maxillary anterior dentition in man. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 153–157.
Kokich V O Jr, Kiyak H A, Shapiro P A . Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11: 311–324.
Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, Kern M . Assessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113: 159–165.
Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza M A . Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 748–753.
Foulger T E, Tredwin C J, Gill D S, Moles D R . The influence of varying maxillary incisal edge embrasure space and interproximal contact area dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J 2010; 209: E4.
McGuire M K. Periodontal plastic surgery. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42: 411–465.
Sarver D M. Principles of cosmetic dentistry in orthodontics: part 1. Shape and proportionality of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 749–753.
Morley J. The role of cosmetic dentistry in restoring a youthful appearance. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 1166–1172.
Rosenstiel S F, Ward D H, Rashid R G . Dentists' preferences of anterior tooth proportion – a web-based study. J Prosthodont 2000; 9: 123–136.
Naylor C K. Esthetic treatment planning: the grid analysis system. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002; 14: 76–84.
Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga M I, Lagravere M O, Major P W . Lay person's perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004; 31: 204–209.
King K L, Evans C A, Viana G, BeGole E, Obrez A . Preferences for vertical position of the maxillary lateral incisors. World J Orthod 2008; 9: 147–154.
Acknowledgements
This work was undertaken at UCL/UCLHT who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooper, G., Tredwin, C., Cooper, N. et al. The influence of maxillary central incisor height-to-width ratio on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J 212, 589–599 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.522
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.522
This article is cited by
-
An evaluation of the influence of teeth and the labial soft tissues on the perceived aesthetics of a smile
British Dental Journal (2017)
-
Upper anterior tooth dimensions in a young-adult Indian population in the UK: implications for aesthetic dentistry
British Dental Journal (2017)
-
Smile influence
British Dental Journal (2013)
-
The golden ratio
British Dental Journal (2012)
-
The robbed that smiles, steals something from the thief
British Dental Journal (2012)
