Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 557-563

  Parekh, Sanjay Manhar ^a   Fields, Henry W ^b   Beck, Michael ^b   Rosenstiel, Stephen ^b  

^a Ohio State University ^*

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Buccal corridor; Smile arc; Smile esthetics; Visual analog scale

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745999118     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 00033219     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brislin R, Lewis S. Dating and physical attractiveness: replication. Psychological Reports. 1968;22(3, Pt. 1):976.
2. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(2):98-111.
3. Frush JP, Fisher RD. The dynesthetic interpretation of the dentogenic concept. J Prosthet Dent. 1958;8:558.
4. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod. 1970;57(2):132-144.
5. Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Orthodontics about face: the reemergence of the esthetic paradigm. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(5):575-576.
6. 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):311-324.
7. Roden-Johnson D, Gallerano R, English J. The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(3):343-350.
8. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(2):208-213.
9. Maple J, Vig K, Beck FM, Larsen P, Shanker S. A Comparison of Providers and Consumers' Perception of Facial Profile Attractiveness [master's thesis]. Columbus, Ohio: Section of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University; 2003.
10. Todd KH, Funk KG, Funk JP, Bonacci R. Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(4):485-489.
11. Kelly AM. Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain? Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5(11):1086-1090.
12. Powell CV, Kelly AM, Williams A. Determining the minimum clinically significant difference in visual analog pain score for children. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(1):28-31.
13. Yamamoto LG, Nomura JT, Sato RL, Ahern RM, Snow JL, Kuwaye TT. Minimum clinically significant VAS differences for simultaneous (paired) interval serial pain assessments. Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21(3):176-179.
14. Zisapel N, Nir T. Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog sleep quality scale. J Sleep Res. 2003;12(4):291-298.
15. Baker BW, Woods MG. The role of the divine proportion in the esthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2001;16(2):108-120.
16. O'Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(4):371-376; discussion 377.
17. Phillips C, Trentini CJ, Douvartzidis N. The effect of treatment on facial attractiveness. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;50(6):590-594.
18. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992;20(4):214-220.
19. Schlosser JB, Preston CB, Lampasso J. The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(1):17-24.
20. Shell TL, Woods MG. Perception of facial esthetics: a comparison of similar class II cases treated with attempted growth modification or later orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(4):365-373.
21. Raj M, Vig K, Beck FM, Larsen P, Shanker S. The Perception of Facial Profile Attractiveness by Providers and Consumers. [master's thesis]. Columbus, Ohio: Section of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University; 2002.
22. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(5):402-408.
23. Aitken RC. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med. 1969;62(10):989-993.
24. US Census Bureau. USA Statistics in Brief - Income. US Census Bureau Web Page, January 18, 2005. Available at: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/income. html. Accessed April 26, 2005.
25. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Slakter MJ, Waltz KJ. A dental-facial attractiveness scale. Part II. Consistency of perception. Am J Orthod. 1983;83(1):44-46.
26. Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999;14(4):291-295.
27. Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod. 1990;17(4):299-304.
28. Yoon M, Jin TH, Dong JK. A study on the smile in Korean youth. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1992;30:259-270.