We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 17 (2015), OMD/PDA     15. Jan. 2016
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 17 (2015), OMD/PDA  (15.01.2016)

Supplement, Poster 965, Language: English


Tooth Architecture and Smile Aesthetics - Qualitative Analysis by Students versus Patients
Martins, Mariana / Manso, Maria da Conceição / Dória, Rita / Manarte-Monteiro, Patrícia
Introduction: Variations in tooth architecture parameters can influence patients and dentistry professionals (D) concerning smile aesthetic perceptions.
Objectives: Qualitative evaluation/comparison of patients and Dentistry students' perceptions regarding tooth architecture parameters and smile aesthetic appearance.
Material and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study, approved by UFP-Ethics Committee. Two photographs (intraoral: maximum occlusion; extra-oral: smile) were taken to 35 patients (74.3% women) of CPMD-UFP. Patients completed the survey (Personalized Aesthetic Evaluation), self-assessment, after watching their own photographs. Thirty-eight FHS-UFP Dentistry students registered tooth micro/macro-aesthetic parameters (Aesthetic Checklist; Fradeani, 2004) after observing the photographs. Descriptive statistical analysis/comparison with chi-square test (α = 0.05).
Results: Patients: satisfaction with tooth shade (60%), with smile (80%), beautiful smile (83%); Interest in changing smile aesthetics (42.9%). Students: square/ovoid (40.8%) tooth shape, normal tooth shade (53%), average tooth length (61.7%), higher CI dominance (66.2%), tooth midline without deviation (55%), normal tooth axes (52.2%), tooth proportionality (51%), tooth asymmetry (54%); 36.4% of smiles considered aesthetic. Patients versus student's compliance ratio (p<0.001) in all evaluated criteria, except regarding the tooth midline parameter. More studies should be applied to different populations and rehabilitation fields.
Conclusions: Most patients showed satisfaction with their tooth architecture/smile aesthetics; patients' perceptions versus students were in agreement on almost all tooth macro/micro-aesthetic parameters evaluated.
Clinical Implications: Tooth architecture/Smile aspect analysis is a communication tool for professional/scientific criteria and patient expectations in planning cosmetic/aesthetic changes.

Keywords: Tooth architecture, aesthetic smile, tooth shade, shape, texture and position

Conference/Exhibition:
24th Annual Meeting of the Portuguese Dental Association
12.-14. November 2015
Meo Arena, Lisboa, Portugal