Laypersons' perceptions of the esthetics of visible anterior occlusion

Journal of the Canadian Dental Association

Volumn 71, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 849-853

  Flores Mir, Carlos ^a   Silva, Eduardo ^b   Barriga, Maria I ^c   Valverde, Renzo H ^d   Lagravère, Manuel O ^a   Major, Paul W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo ^*

^c MASTERS AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN PHYSICAL THERAPY   (Brazil)

^d UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA CAYETANO HEREDIA   (Peru)

Author keywords

Attitude to health; Esthetics, dental; Malocclusion psychology; Self concept

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; DENTAL CARE; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEX DIFFERENCE; TOOTH OCCLUSION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DENTAL OCCLUSION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ESTHETICS, DENTAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY, DENTAL; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 31344448067     PISSN: 14882159     EISSN: 14882159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Vig KW, Weyant R, O'Brien K, Bennett E. Developing outcome measures in orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values. Semin Orthod 1999; 5(2):85-95.
2. Eli I, Bar-Tal Y, Kostovetzki I. At first glance: social meanings of dental appearance. J Public Health Dent 2001; 61 (3):150-4.
3. Kerns LL, Silveira AM, Kerns DG, Regennitter FJ. Esthetic preference of the frontal and profile views of the same smile. J Esthet Dent 1997; 9(2):76-85.
4. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR. The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 1985; 87(1):21-6.
5. Tickle M, Kay EJ, Beam D. Socio-economic status and orthodontic treatment need. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27(6):413-8.
6. Chia RC, Allred LJ, Grossnickle WF, Lee GW. Effects of attractiveness and gender on the perception of achievement-related variables. J Soc Psychol 1998; 138(4):471-7.
7. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga M, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person's perception of smile esthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004; 31(3):204-9.
8. Flores-Mir C, Major PW, Salazar FR. Self-perceived orthodontic treatment need evaluated through 3 scales in a university population. J Orthod 2004; 31(4):329-34.
9. Barnabe E, Kresevic VD, Cabrejos SC, Flores-Mir F, Flores-Mir C. Dental esthetic self-perception in young adults with and without previous orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. In press 2006.
10. Svedstrom-Oristo AL, Pietila T, Pietila I, Alanen P, Varrela J. Morphological, functional and aesthetic criteria of acceptable mature occlusion. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23(4):373-81.
11. Giddon DB, Sconzo R, Kinchen JA, Evans CA. Quantitative comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences. Angle Orthod 1996; 66(6):441-8.
12. Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod 1999; 21(5):517-22.
13. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20(4):214-20.
14. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11(6):311-24.
15. Thomas JL, Hayes C, Zawaideh S. The effect of axial midline angulation on dental esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003; 73(4):359-64.