Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: An aesthetic smile has a number of components, and people generally equate a good dental appearance with success in many areas of life. The features that determine smile aesthetics could provide significant insights into post-treatment satisfaction and may predict a patient's objectives when undergoing treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how smile characteristics are perceived by dental students. METHODS: The study was performed in 431 local and international dental students at the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. The study data were collected using a three-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire included sociodemographic items, i.e., student gender, age, nationality, and years of study; the second consisted of questions about facial aesthetic features; and the third elicited responses to photographs of 17 different smiles retrieved from the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Clinic of Orthodontics database. The smile aesthetics were evaluated according to their dentolabial, dentogingival, dental, and dental arch characteristics using a 5-point numeric rating scale (1, best; 5, worst). The data were analysed using the Pearson's chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The study included 336 local and 95 international dental students (132 men 30.6%, 299 women 69.4%). Significantly more women than men focused on a person's teeth when communicating (41.5% vs.32.6%, p < 0.005). Women were more critical than men when evaluating gingival smile, the 'golden proportion', occlusal cant, and dental crowding. The most unfavourable smile characteristics were identified in the dental analysis category, with hypodontia ranked as the worst smile feature (mean numeric rating scale score 4.71). CONCLUSION: Among dental students, the most distracting characteristics of a smile when determining its attractiveness were hypodontia, gingival smile, a reversed curvature of the occlusal plane, and dental crowding.
Armalaitė et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: