Abstract
Background
The perception of dentofacial esthetics differs considerably between patients and dentists. Patient’s expectations regarding his/her esthetics are important and should be assessed ahead of any planning of esthetic treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in perception of orofacial appearance by laypersons with different social and demographic status.
Materials and methods
Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 400 subjects. The questionnaire comprised three parts; the first part addressed the demographic variables. The second part queried about dental prosthesis, orthognathic or plastic surgery, and/or ongoing or previous orthodontic treatment. The third part included the Arabic version of the-8-item Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-Ar) whose responses were scored in the 5-point Likert scale. These scores were compared by different grouping factors (age, gender, marital status, and education) using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Willis tests with 95% confidence interval (α > 0.05).
Results
A total of 268 questionnaires were eligible for analysis, representing 67% response rate. The satisfaction with facial profile appearance was the highest (4.0±1.1) followed by facial appearance (3.9±1.1), while the color of teeth was the least satisfying item (3.1±1.3). No significant differences were found between age groups for the mean summary score as well as for each item independently. No significant difference was found between both sexes except for the last item “overall impression”. Married subjects rated one item (alignment of teeth) better than their counterparts. Positive perception of orofacial appearance increased significantly with the increase of education level, the perception of the oral health status, and the perception of the general health status.
Conclusion
Good oral health and/or high education level are significant determinants of more positive perception of orofacial esthetic appearance. Patients with these characteristics might be more concerned about their orofacial appearance, and this should be taken into consideration before planning any esthetic restorative dental treatment.
Introduction
Face attractiveness is a multifactorial entity including face symmetry, nose, eyes, and dental appearance, which has been considered as the most effective feature [1, 2]. Dental appearance includes color, size, shape, and position of teeth, plus gingival display and upper lip position [3–7]. Hence, untreated carious teeth, unaesthetic restorations, and the missing of any of the anterior teeth can usually worsen the perception of dental appearance [8, 9].
Esthetic replacement or restoration has many advantages for those who had lost their teeth, particularly the anterior ones. Besides restoring functional needs, it can also improve the self-confidence and self-esteem of a patient [10, 11]. Moreover, it has been reported that proper esthetic restoration can improve the quality of life [12, 13]. Therefore, the appropriate size, shape, and color of the anterior teeth are essential in restorative dentistry.
On the other hand, the perception of dentofacial esthetics differs considerably between patients and dentists [14–17]. Patient’s expectations regarding his/her esthetics are important and should be assessed before any planning for esthetic treatment as it will be reflected directly on the patient’s feelings toward the outcome of the treatment. It is a crucial measure for the satisfaction of dental treatment [8, 18]. Some ambiguities in dental literature still exist regarding factors that influence the individual perception of dental appearance. Some researchers suggested that self-perception declined with age and that older patients have fewer concerns about the esthetics of their teeth and face [19, 20]. Other researchers, in contrast, reported that age had no significant effects on the perception of dental esthetics [8, 21].
Perception of dental and facial esthetic has been investigated using different tools; however, no study has conducted to assess the association between social and demographic factors on the perception of orofacial appearance using the orofacial esthetic scale (OES) questionnaire. The aim of this study was to explore whether there are any differences in perception of orofacial appearance, using the Arabic version of the OES questionnaire, among laypersons having different social and demographic status. The null hypothesis states no associations between different social and demographic statuses and the subject’s perception of orofacial appearance.
Materials and methods
The study was of descriptive cross-sectional design. Subjects were consecutively recruited from the Prosthodontics and the Conservative Dentistry Departments at Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Yemen. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed in two ways, either printed form or as an electronic form. The questionnaire consisted of three sections; the first section was related to social and demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, and education level), and self-rating of their oral and general health status. In this section, the education level was categorized into three levels (low educated, including illiterate and primary, moderate educated including preparatory and secondary, and high educated, including university or above). The self-rated oral and general health status were assessed using the globally well-known one question “How do you rate your oral health status?” and “How do you rate your general health status?” the responses of these questions were categorized into a 3-point Likert scale.
The second section of the questionnaire included items related to the presence or absence of dental prosthesis (implant, removable and/or fixed dental prosthesis), missing anterior teeth, orthognathic or plastic surgery, and/or ongoing or previous orthodontic treatment. The last section of the questionnaire represented the Arabic version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-Ar) [22], which consisted of 8 items for the rating of orofacial appearance. Responses were scored by the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Very unsatisfied” to 5 “Very Satisfied”. Inclusion criteria were: 18 years or older, anterior or all teeth present (subjects with missing anterior teeth were not included), and no physical or mental disability. All subjects who answered “yes” in any question of the second section were excluded from the study. All subjects were asked to give their informed consent, and the Ethical Approval was obtained from the Research Ethical Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University (Ref: 2019004) ahead of conducting the study.
Descriptive statistics included frequencies and proportions (for qualitative data), and means and standard deviations (summary score for quantitative data). Based on the distribution of the quantitative data, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Willis non-parametric tests, as appropriate, were used to compare participants’ responses to the OES-Ar and other study variables. The regression analysis was conducted to explore the determinants of the perception of the orofacial appearance. All statistical tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) with a 95% confidence interval and α < 0.05.
Results
A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed. Out of the returned questionnaires (n = 350), 268 questionnaires were eligible to be included in the analysis representing 67% of the participating subjects. More than half of subjects (52.6%) were females, within the age between 21 and 30 years (66.4%), single (54.1%), and with a high education level (61.6%). More than 80% of subjects rated their general health as good, very good, or excellent. Similarly, about 70% of subjects rated their oral health as good, very good, or excellent. In general, no significant difference was found between the different age groups regarding the perception of orofacial esthetics (summary score). Also, no significant differences were found between both genders and between single and married subjects. However, significant differences were found between subgroups in relation to education level, self-rated oral health, and self-rated general health status (Table 1).
Table 1. Number, percentage, and mean ± SD of responses to OES-Ar by study variables.
| N (%) | Mean±SD | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age groups | < 20 yrs | 22 (8.2) | 3.5±1.0 | 0.622b |
| 21–30 yrs | 178 (66.4) | 3.7±0.9 | ||
| > 30 yrs | 68 (25.4) | 3.5±1.0 | ||
| Gender | Male | 127 (47.4) | 3.7±0.9 | 0.185a |
| Female | 141 (52.6) | 3.5±1.0 | ||
| Marital status | Single | 145 (54.1) | 3.7±0.9 | 0.178a |
| Married | 123 (45.9) | 3.5±1.0 | ||
| Education level | Low | 33 (12.3) | 2.7±1.1 | 0.000b |
| Medium | 70 (26.1) | 3.7±0.9 | ||
| High | 165 (61.6) | 3.8±0.8 | ||
| Perceived GH | Poor/Fair | 25 (9.3) | 2.8±1.0 | 0.000b |
| Good | 69 (25.7) | 3.3±1.0 | ||
| Very good/Excellent | 174 (64.9) | 3.8±0.9 | ||
| Perceived OH | Poor/Fair | 77 (28.7) | 2.9±1.0 | 0.000b |
| Good | 91 (34.0) | 3.7±0.7 | ||
| Very good/Excellent | 100 (37.3) | 4.1±0.7 |
aMann-Whitney U test was used;
bKruskal Willis test was used;
N: Number; SD: Standard deviation; GH: General health; OH: Oral health;
P< 0.05 is considered significant.
Regarding self-perceived orofacial esthetics, satisfaction with the facial profile appearance received the highest scores (4.0±1.1), followed by the facial appearance (frontal view) (3.9 ± 1.1); the color of teeth was the least satisfying item (3.1±1.3; Fig 1). Table 2 represents the number of responses according to the questionnaire items. The color of teeth was the most unsatisfied item as scored by 37 (13.8%) participants, while the facial profile appearance was the most satisfied item as scored by 115 (42.9) participants.
Fig 1. Means and SD of the 8 items of the OES-Ar for all sample.
Table 2. Distribution of responses scales according to the OES-Ar items.
| Very unsatisfied | Unsatisfied | Average | Satisfied | Very satisfied | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facial appearance | 14 (5.2) | 10 (3.7) | 67 (25.0) | 65 (24.3) | 112 (41.8) |
| Facial profile | 13 (4.9) | 14 (5.2) | 55 (20.5) | 71 (26.5) | 115 (42.9) |
| Mouth appearance | 24 (9.0) | 30 (11.2) | 65 (24.3) | 59 (22.0) | 90 (33.6) |
| Alignment of teeth | 27 (10.1) | 37 (13.8) | 58 (21.6) | 75 (28.0) | 71 (26.5) |
| Shape/Form of teeth | 25 (9.3) | 39 (14.6) | 58 (21.6) | 77 (28.7) | 69 (25.7) |
| Color of teeth | 37 (13.8) | 48 (17.9) | 68 (25.4) | 69 (25.7) | 46 (17.2) |
| Gum appearance | 14 (5.2) | 41 (15.3) | 62 (23.1) | 78 (29.1) | 73 (27.2) |
| Overall appearance | 15 (5.6) | 28 (10.4) | 70 (26.1) | 93 (34.7) | 62 (23.1) |
No significant differences were found between both genders (P> 0.05) for all items except for the last item [overall impression (P = 0.04)]; where males rated their overall impression better than females (3.8±0.9 and 3.4±1.3, respectively). Single subjects rated their orofacial appearance better than married subjects for all items. However, these differences were statistically significant only for the color of teeth and overall impression (P = 0.04 each; Table 3).
Table 3. Responses to OES-Ar questionnaire according to gender and marital status.
| Gender | Marital status | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Pa | Single | Married | Pa | |
| Facial appearance | 4.1 ± 1.0 | 3.8 ± 1.2 | 0.21 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | 3.9 ± 1.2 | 0.76 |
| Facial profile | 4.1 ± 1.0 | 3.9 ± 1.2 | 0.26 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | 3.9 ± 1.2 | 0.58 |
| Mouth appearance | 3.7 ± 1.2 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.35 | 3.7 ± 1.2 | 3.4 ± 1.4 | 0.09 |
| Alignment of teeth | 3.4 ± 1.2 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.60 | 3.5 ± 1.2 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.85 |
| Shape/Form of teeth | 3.6 ± 1.1 | 3.3 ± 1.4 | 0.14 | 3.6 ± 1.2 | 3.3 ± 1.4 | 0.07 |
| Color of teeth | 3.2 ± 1.3 | 3.1 ± 1.3 | 0.30 | 3.3 ± 1.2 | 3.0 ± 1.4 | 0.04 |
| Gum appearance | 3.7 ± 1.1 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.27 | 3.7 ± 1.1 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.36 |
| Overall appearance | 3.8 ± 0.9 | 3.4 ± 1.3 | 0.04 | 3.8 ± 1.0 | 3.4 ± 1.2 | 0.04 |
aMann-Whitney U test was used; P< 0.05 is considered significant.
Although younger subjects ≤ 30 years rated their orofacial esthetic better than subjects in age > 30 years, the differences were not statistically significant (P< 0.05) for all items. Positive perception of orofacial appearance increased significantly for all items with the increase of education level (P< 0.05); Table 4). Subjects who better rated their oral and general health status were also significantly more satisfied with their orofacial appearance (P< 0.05; Table 5).
Table 4. Responses to OES-Ar questionnaire according to age and education level.
| Age groups | Education level | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 20 yrs | 21–30 yrs | > 30 yrs | Pb | Low | Medium | High | Pb | |
| Facial appearance | 3.6±1.4 | 4.0±1.1 | 4.0±1.1 | 0.521 | 3.2±1.4 | 4.0±1.1 | 4.1±1.0 | 0.001 |
| Facial profile | 3.9±1.2 | 4.0±1.1 | 3.9±1.1 | 0.398 | 3.1±1.4 | 4.1±1.1 | 4.1±1.0 | 0.000 |
| Mouth appearance | 3.6±1.3 | 3.7±1.3 | 3.4±1.4 | 0.331 | 2.8±1.5 | 3.6±1.2 | 3.8±1.2 | 0.001 |
| Alignment of teeth | 3.2±1.4 | 3.5±1.3 | 3.5±1.3 | 0.683 | 2.9±1.5 | 3.6±1.3 | 3.5±1.2 | 0.049 |
| Shape/Form of teeth | 3.2±1.2 | 3.6±1.3 | 3.3±1.3 | 0.187 | 2.3±1.3 | 3.4±1.3 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.000 |
| Color of teeth | 3.3±1.3 | 3.2±1.2 | 2.9±1.4 | 0.310 | 2.2±1.2 | 3.2±1.4 | 3.3±1.2 | 0.000 |
| Gum appearance | 3.8±1.4 | 3.6±1.1 | 3.5±1.3 | 0.423 | 2.8±1.4 | 3.6±1.2 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.001 |
| Overall appearance | 3.5±1.2 | 3.7±1.1 | 3.5±1.2 | 0.485 | 2.4±1.3 | 3.6±1.2 | 3.8±0.9 | 0.000 |
bKruskal Willis test was used; P< 0.05 is considered significant.
Table 5. Responses to OES-Ar questionnaire according to self-rated oral health and general health status.
| Self-rated general health | Self-rated oral health | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Good | Excellent | Pb | Poor | Good | Excellent | Pb | |
| Facial appearance | 2.8±1.2 | 3.6±1.3 | 4.2±0.9 | 0.000 | 3.2±1.4 | 4.0±0.9 | 4.4±0.8 | 0.000 |
| Facial profile | 2.9±1.3 | 3.6±1.3 | 4.3±0.9 | 0.000 | 3.2±1.4 | 4.1±0.9 | 4.5±0.8 | 0.000 |
| Mouth appearance | 3.1±1.1 | 3.4±1.4 | 3.8±1.3 | 0.009 | 2.8±1.4 | 3.7±1.0 | 4.2±1.1 | 0.000 |
| Alignment of teeth | 2.8±1.3 | 3.3±1.3 | 3.6±1.3 | 0.015 | 2.9±1.4 | 3.4±1.2 | 3.9±1.1 | 0.000 |
| Shape/Form of teeth | 2.3±1.3 | 3.2±1.3 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.000 | 2.6±1.4 | 3.5±1.1 | 4.1±1.0 | 0.000 |
| Color of teeth | 2.7±1.3 | 2.9±1.3 | 3.3±1.3 | 0.017 | 2.4±1.3 | 3.2±1.2 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.000 |
| Gum appearance | 3.0±1.4 | 3.4±1.2 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.016 | 3.0±1.3 | 3.5±1.1 | 4.1±1.0 | 0.000 |
| Overall appearance | 2.8±1.1 | 3.3±1.2 | 3.8±1.0 | 0.000 | 2.8±1.3 | 3.8±0.8 | 4.1±0.9 | 0.000 |
bKruskal Willis test was used; P< 0.05 is considered significant.
Significant positive Spearman correlation coefficients were found between the OES-Ar summary score and the oral health score (r = 0.524; P< 0.001), as well as between the OES-Ar summary score and the general health score (r = 0.317; P< 0.001). The regression analysis (Table 6) revealed that the self-rated oral health [B = 0.20 (CI95%: 0.03, 0.38); P = 0.025] and the education level [B = 0.54 (CI95%: 0.39, 0.68); P< 0.001] were the only significant determinants of the orofacial esthetics (Model Summary: R2 = 0.294, Adj. R2 = 0.278; ANOVA < 0.001). It can be clearly noticed from the regression model that the perception of orofacial appearance would decrease with increasing age, but this relationship was not significant (P = 0.344).
Table 6. Regression analysis for the determinants affecting the perception of orofacial appearance.
| Unstandardized Coefficients | 95% CI for B | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Lower | Upper | ||
| (Constant) | 1.82 | 0.43 | 0.96 | 2.67 | 0.000 |
| Age groups | -0.10 | 0.11 | -0.31 | 0.11 | 0.344 |
| Gender | 0.05 | 0.11 | -0.17 | 0.27 | 0.660 |
| Marital status | 0.16 | 0.12 | -0.09 | 0.40 | 0.210 |
| Education level | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.025 |
| Perceived GH | 0.09 | 0.09 | -0.09 | 0.27 | 0.302 |
| Perceived OH | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.39 | 0.68 | 0.000 |
R2: 0.294; Adj. R2: 0.278; Model fit ANOVA: < 0.001;
CI: Confidence interval.
P< 0.05 is considered significant.
Discussion
The OES questionnaire is a new tool established by Larsson et al. [23] to evaluate the perception of the individual’s orofacial esthetic. It has been translated into different languages, and its psychometric properties have been tested among different populations [22, 24–29]. The perception of esthetic can be greatly different among different populations with different sociodemographic characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using the OES-Ar questionnaire to explore the perception of orofacial appearance among adults of different sociodemographic levels in Yemen. The OES-Ar questionnaire used the 1–5 Likert scale for rating, as recommended in the Croatian and the Albanian version of the OES [24, 25].
The null hypothesis was partially rejected in our study as there was a significant effect of self-rated oral health and education level on the perception of orofacial appearance, while no significant effect was observed for the other factors. It has been reported that missing anterior teeth had a significant negative effect on the perception of esthetic [30, 31]. In contrast, orthodontic treatment or orthognathic/plastic surgery had a significant positive effect on esthetic perception [32]. We excluded subjects with these features or treatments to avoid any confounding factors that might affect their esthetic perception. In the current study, the questionnaires were distributed either in hard or electronic form. Neophytou et al. [33] reported no impact of administration mode on the assessment of orofacial appearance using the OES.
In general, our observations revealed that facial profile appearance had the highest self-rated scores, followed by the frontal facial appearance, while the color of teeth received the worst ratings. However, these observations had no significant association with age, gender, and marital status of the participants. The color of teeth is a sensitive and substantial component of smile appearance and attractiveness [34–37]. Although in our study, younger individuals perceived their orofacial appearance better than their counterparts, no significant difference was found between age groups. Tin-Oo et al. [8] found no significant effect of age on perception of a dental appearance, while some other studies [19, 38] found significant effects of age. The variations of the results might be due to differences in the scales which had been used. We found out that the perception of the esthetics between both genders was significantly different for the overall esthetic impression. This overall result was in favor of males who reported better orofacial appearance. In general, females are more concerned about the esthetics and, therefore, tend to rate their dental appearance lower than males [39–42].
Single individuals rated their orofacial appearance better than married ones. This might be due to the fact that married individuals had more responsibilities and more priorities in their life than taking care of their appearance. Individuals with high education levels rated their orofacial appearance better than those with low or none education. This result is in agreement with some previous studies [41–43]. Individuals with higher academic achievement seem to be more aware of and more concerned about their oral health and orofacial appearance and probably have better hygiene, less carious lesions, which might be responsible for their better scores.
It is well documented that the satisfaction of dental aesthetics plays an essential role in the perception of oral health and oral health-related quality of life [13, 22, 44–47]. Moreover, the relationship between oral and general health status has been reported [46, 48–50]. The perception of the oral and facial complex from the patient’s point of view is of utmost importance for the success, as well as the satisfaction of dental treatment [39, 51, 52]. Social variation among individuals is another factor that should be considered.
Though the present study clearly showed some differences in perception of orofacial appearance among individuals with social disparities, being most of the participants within the age < 30 years and with high education level should be acknowledged as limitations, and the results could not be generalized for the whole population. Another shortcoming of the study could be the use of single questions to measure the oral and general health although the OES can be used as a stand-alone instrument when a detailed assessment of esthetic concerns is desired [23]. The small sample size and the low response rate is another limitation for interpreting the results. Therefore, the present study could be a starting point for further community-based studies with larger sample size and more socioeconomic and demographic factors may be necessary.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that good oral health (self-rated) and/or high education level are independent determinants of more positive perception of orofacial esthetic appearance. Patients with these characteristics might be more concerned about their orofacial appearance, and this should be taken into consideration before planning any esthetic restorative dental treatment.
Supporting information
(XLSX)
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research and Vice Deanship of Scientific Research for Research Chairs, King Saud University.
Abbreviations
- Ar
Arabic
- OES
Orofacial Esthetic Scale
Data Availability
Data has been attached as supplementary file.
Funding Statement
The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University for funding through the Vice Deanship of Scientific Research for Research Chairs. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 2011;366(1571):1638–59. Epub 2011/05/04. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0404 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clinics in plastic surgery. 2013;40(2):249–60. Epub 2013/03/20. 10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chignell A. Beauty as a Symbol of Natural Systematicity. Br J Aesthet. 2006;46(4):406–15. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Davis LG, Ashworth PD, Spriggs LS. Psychological effects of aesthetic dental treatment. Journal of dentistry. 1998;26(7):547–54. Epub 1998/10/01. 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00031-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Krajicek DD. Natural appearance for the individual denture patient. J Prosthet Dent. 1960;10(2):205–14. 10.1016/0022-3913(60)90041-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.McLaren EA, Rifkin R. Macroesthetics: facial and dentofacial analysis. Journal of the California Dental Association. 2002;30(11):839–46. Epub 2002/11/29. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Panossian AJ, Block MS. Evaluation of the smile: facial and dental considerations. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2010;68(3):547–54. Epub 2010/02/23. 10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N. Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire to improve aesthetics. BMC oral health. 2011;11:6 Epub 2011/02/24. 10.1186/1472-6831-11-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mack MR. Perspective of facial esthetics in dental treatment planning. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(2):169–76. Epub 1996/02/01. 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90095-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L. Patients' satisfaction with dental esthetics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6):805–8. Epub 2007/06/05. 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0269 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Maghaireh GA, Alzraikat H, Taha NA. Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Attitude toward improving Dental Esthetics among Patients attending a Dental Teaching Center. The journal of contemporary dental practice. 2016;17(1):16–21. Epub 2016/04/17. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M. General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2006;19(5):449–54. Epub 2007/02/28. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Afroz S, Rathi S, Rajput G, Rahman SA. Dental esthetics and its impact on psycho-social well-being and dental self confidence: a campus based survey of north Indian university students. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2013;13(4):455–60. Epub 2014/01/17. 10.1007/s13191-012-0247-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tortopidis D, Hatzikyriakos A, Kokoti M, Menexes G, Tsiggos N. Evaluation of the relationship between subjects' perception and professional assessment of esthetic treatment needs. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(3):154–62; discussion 63. Epub 2007/05/24. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00089.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wagner IV, Carlsson GE, Ekstrand K, Odman P, Schneider N. A comparative study of assessment of dental appearance by dentists, dental technicians, and laymen using computer-aided image manipulation. Journal of esthetic dentistry. 1996;8(5):199–205. Epub 1996/01/01. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1996.tb00893.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Witt M, Flores-Mir C. Laypeople's preferences regarding frontal dentofacial esthetics: tooth-related factors. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(6):635–45. Epub 2011/06/02. 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0245 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M. Subjective and objective perception of upper incisors. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(7):489–95. Epub 2006/06/16. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01581.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Riley JL 3rd, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Qvist V, Patel S, et al. Components of patient satisfaction with a dental restorative visit: results from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(9):1002–10. Epub 2012/09/04. 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0329 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sriphadungporn C, Chamnannidiadha N. Perception of smile esthetics by laypeople of different ages. Progress in orthodontics. 2017;18(1):8 Epub 2017/03/21. 10.1186/s40510-017-0162-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Baubinienė D, Šidlauskas A. The factors effecting satisfaction of dental appearance and self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment in 10–11 and 14–15 year-old Lithuanian schoolchildren. J Stomatologija. 2009;11(3):97–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Enabulele J, Omo J. Self perceived satisfaction with dental appearance and desired treatment to improve aesthetics. Afr J Oral Health. 2017;7(1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Alhajj MN, Amran AG, Halboub E, Al-Basmi AA, Al-Ghabri FA. Development, validation and psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale: OES-Ar. Journal of prosthodontic research. 2017;61(3):290–6. Epub 2016/11/27. 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.10.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, Bondemark L, List T. Development of an Orofacial Esthetic Scale in prosthodontic patients. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2010;23(3):249–56. Epub 2010/06/17. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bimbashi V, Celebic A, Staka G, Hoxha F, Persic S, Petricevic N. Psychometric properties of the Albanian version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale: OES-ALB. BMC oral health. 2015;15:97 Epub 2015/08/27. 10.1186/s12903-015-0083-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Persic S, Milardovic S, Mehulic K, Celebic A. Psychometric properties of the Croatian version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale and suggestions for modification. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2011;24(6):523–33. Epub 2011/12/08. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.N'Guyen-Van TL, Moreau N, Braud A. Development and Validation of the French Version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2019;32(2):137–42. Epub 2019/03/12. 10.11607/ijp.6002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Zhao Y, He SL. Development of the Chinese version of the Oro-facial Esthetic Scale. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(9):670–7. Epub 2013/07/09. 10.1111/joor.12077 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Reissmann DR, Benecke AW, Aarabi G, Sierwald I. Development and validation of the German version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale. Clinical oral investigations. 2015;19(6):1443–50. Epub 2014/12/04. 10.1007/s00784-014-1365-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Campos LA, Marôco J, John MT, Santos-Pinto A, Campos J. Development and psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale: OES-Pt. PeerJ. 2020;8:e8814 Epub 2020/03/27. 10.7717/peerj.8814 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gerritsen AE, Sarita P, Witter DJ, Kreulen CM, Mulder J, Creugers NH. Esthetic perception of missing teeth among a group of Tanzanian adults. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2008;21(2):169–73. Epub 2008/06/13. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chen P, Yu S, Zhu G. The psychosocial impacts of implantation on the dental aesthetics of missing anterior teeth patients. Br Dent J. 2012;213(11):E20 Epub 2012/12/12. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1090 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bolas-Colvee B, Tarazona B, Paredes-Gallardo V, Arias-De Luxan S. Relationship between perception of smile esthetics and orthodontic treatment in Spanish patients. PloS one. 2018;13(8):e0201102 Epub 2018/08/14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0201102 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Neophytou S, Sierwald I, Michelaki I, Reissmann DR. Impact of administration mode on Oro-facial Appearance assessment using the Oro-facial Esthetic Scale. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(12):932–8. Epub 2018/09/07. 10.1111/joor.12715 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hofel L, Lange M, Jacobsen T. Beauty and the teeth: perception of tooth color and its influence on the overall judgment of facial attractiveness. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007;27(4):349–57. Epub 2007/08/31. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Grosofsky A, Adkins S, Bastholm R, Meyer L, Krueger L, Meyer J, et al. Tooth color: effects on judgments of attractiveness and age. Perceptual and motor skills. 2003;96(1):43–8. Epub 2003/04/23. 10.2466/pms.2003.96.1.43 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Eli I, Bar-Tal Y, Kostovetzki I. At first glance: social meanings of dental appearance. Journal of public health dentistry. 2001;61(3):150–4. Epub 2001/10/18. 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2001.tb03382.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pavicic DK, Spalj S, Uhac I, Lajnert V. A Cross-Sectional Study of the Influence of Tooth Color Elements on Satisfaction with Smile Esthetics. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2017;30(2):156–9. Epub 2017/03/08. 10.11607/ijp.5070 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kavand G, Broffitt B, Levy SM, Warren JJ. Comparison of dental esthetic perceptions of young adolescents and their parents. Journal of public health dentistry. 2012;72(2):164–71. Epub 2012/03/01. 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00306.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Cracel-Nogueira F, Pinho T. Assessment of the perception of smile esthetics by laypersons, dental students and dental practitioners. International orthodontics / College europeen d'orthodontie. 2013;11(4):432–44. Epub 2014/01/16. 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Yin L, Jiang M, Chen W, Smales RJ, Wang Q, Tang L. Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(6):750–6. Epub 2014/06/02. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.01.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Xiaoxian M, Gilbert GH, Duncan RP, Heft MW. Satisfaction with dental appearance among diverse groups of dentate adults. Journal of aging and health. 2007;19(5):778–91. Epub 2007/07/05. 10.1177/0898264307304373 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person's perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. Journal of orthodontics. 2004;31(3):204–9; discussion 1. Epub 2004/10/19. 10.1179/146531204225022416 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Matthias RE, Atchison KA, Schweitzer SO, Lubben JE, Mayer-Oakes A, De Jong F. Comparisons between dentist ratings and self-ratings of dental appearance in an elderly population. Special care in dentistry: official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry. 1993;13(2):53–60. Epub 1993/03/01. 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1993.tb01455.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Isiekwe GI, Sofola OO, Onigbogi OO, Utomi IL, Sanu OO, daCosta OO. Dental esthetics and oral health-related quality of life in young adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(4):627–36. Epub 2016/10/04. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.025 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Klages U, Bruckner A, Zentner A. Dental aesthetics, self-awareness, and oral health-related quality of life in young adults. European journal of orthodontics. 2004;26(5):507–14. Epub 2004/11/13. 10.1093/ejo/26.5.507 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Alhajj MN, Halboub E, Khalifa N, Amran AG, Reissmann DR, Abdullah AG, et al. Translation and validation of the Arabic version of the 5-item Oral health impact profile: OHIP5-Ar. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2018;16(1):218 Epub 2018/11/21. 10.1186/s12955-018-1046-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Larsson P, Bondemark L, Häggman-Henrikson B. The impact of oro-facial appearance on oral health-related quality of life: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2020. Epub 2020/03/21. 10.1111/joor.12965 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O, Kriston L, Hinz A. Association between perceived oral and general health. Journal of dentistry. 2013;41(7):581–9. Epub 2013/05/28. 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hollister MC, Weintraub JA. The association of oral status with systemic health, quality of life, and economic productivity. Journal of dental education. 1993;57(12):901–12. Epub 1993/12/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Sargozaie N, Moeintaghavi A, Shojaie H. Comparing the Quality of Life of Patients Requesting Dental Implants Before and After Implant. The open dentistry journal. 2017;11:485–91. Epub 2017/11/09. 10.2174/1874210601711010485 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Saffarpour A, Ghavam M, Saffarpour A, Dayani R, Fard MJ. Perception of Laypeople and Dental Professionals of Smile Esthetics. Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran). 2016;13(2):85–91. Epub 2016/12/09. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Parrini S, Rossini G, Castroflorio T, Fortini A, Deregibus A, Debernardi C. Laypeople's perceptions of frontal smile esthetics: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(5):740–50. Epub 2016/11/23. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
(XLSX)
(DOCX)
Data Availability Statement
Data has been attached as supplementary file.