English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Objectives: Smile is an important mark of beauty, and smile attractiveness can be influenced by various factors, one of these being the amount of gingival exposure. The aim of this research was to evaluate the perception of an ideal gingival exposure in smile in a sample of Romanian dentists and laypersons, and to find out what is the most important aspect that influences the smile perception for the respondents included in the study sample. Materials and Methods: An online survey was conducted between 3 February 2020 and 31 October 2020. The authors developed a short questionnaire consisting of 7 items. The first four items investigated the respondents’ age, gender, profession and whether or not they underwent an orthodontic treatment in the past. For items 5 and 6, participants had to choose the most and the least attractive amount of gingival exposure, and for the last item they had to choose the factor that mostly influences the smile attractiveness in their opinion. Results: 235 questionnaires remained in the study. The sample consisted of 194 women and 41 men, 162 laypersons and 73 dentists. The average value for the most attractive amount of gingival exposure was −0.57 ± 2.407 mm, with a median value of 0 mm while the average value for the least attractive amount of gingival exposure was 1.43 ± 3.785 mm, with a median value of 4 mm. The differences between the most or least attractive gingival exposure perceived by the participants were not significant according to gender or professional category (p &gt; 0.05), but, when compared between having or not having an orthodontic treatment in the past the differences were statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05). As such, participants who had an orthodontic treatment in the past perceived a significantly higher value for the most attractive gingival exposure, and a significantly higher value for the least attractive gingival exposure (p = 0.026) than the participants who didn’t have an orthodontic treatment in the past. As for the factor that mainly influences smile attractiveness, laypersons chose significantly more frequent white teeth or aligned teeth (96%, 71.7%) while dentists chose significantly more frequent a gingival exposure between 0−3 mm (70.4%) as smile factors for an aesthetic smile (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: In this study sample, the respondents considered that the most attractive smile involved a covering of 0.57 mm (in average) of the upper incisors by the upper lip. Although smile attractiveness did not appear to be influenced by gender or profession in this study population, it was influenced by previous orthodontic treatment. The participants’ roles of dentist or layperson influenced the factors chosen for an aesthetic smile.

The Influence of Gingival Exposure on Smile Attractiveness as Perceived by Dentists and Laypersons