RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of a single infrapositioned ankylosed tooth or implant supported restoration, in smile attractiveness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A series of 48 digital modified images, simulating a varying degree of infraposition(from 0.25 to 2.0 mm, with a step of 0.25 mm), was created for each one of the maxillary anterior tooth, by altering the full-portrait image of a smiling male adult, in medium and high smile lines. For the model with the high smile line, also a series of 24 digital modified images simulating infraposition of a single anterior tooth with a restored incisal edge was created. Smile attractiveness for each one of the images was evaluated from 160 participants (80 dentists and 80 laypersons), implementing a visual analog scale. RESULTS: For the images with the high smile line, an infraposition ≥ 0.25mm in central incisor's region and ≥ 0.5mm in the region of the lateral incisor or the canine, had a negative effect on the perceived smile attractiveness both for the dentists and the laypersons. Regarding the medium smile line, an infraposition ≥ 0.5mm in central and lateral incisor's region, had a negative effect on the perceived smile attractiveness for both groups of observers. In the area of the canine, infraposition ≥ 0.5mm for the dentists and ≥ 0.75mm for the laypersons, had a negative impact on the smile attractiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Even a minor infraposition of a single maxillary anterior ankylosed tooth or implant supported restoration, can reduce the perceived attractiveness of the face. Infraposition in canine's area can be better tolerated in a medium, compared to a high smile line. In patients with a high smile line prosthetic intervention in order to restore the incisal edge of an infrapositioned tooth, without to harmonize the gingival contour, can be beneficial for the lateral incisor, ineffective for the central incisor and unfavorable for the canine.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a relationship between the distance between the iris and pupil with the ideal size of buccal corridors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A full-portrait image of a male Caucasian was used to create a set of 11 digitally modified images with different buccal corridor space. A web-based cross-sectional study was designed and distributed via an online survey to 200 laypeople and 200 orthodontists to assess image attractiveness, using a Visual analogue scale. For the statistical analysis, Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The response rate for laypeople was 70% (n = 139), while the rate for orthodontists was 73% (n = 146). For the layperson group, the maximum smile attractiveness score was 10% of buccal width reduction, compared to the iris-pupillary distance, while for the orthodontists, it was 20%. The attractiveness of the smile was significantly reduced in both groups when the buccal corridor width was increased in comparison to the iris-pupillary distance. CONCLUSION: The length between the mesial part of the iris and the distal of the pupil, may constitutes a landmark for the estimation of the desired width of the buccal corridor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Inter iris-pupillary distance can be the starting point in the smile designing process, in order to perform a facial driven selection of buccal corridor size.
