Objective. The current investigation was proposed to determine the impression of trained dental professionals and laypeople towards the modified smile esthetics. Materials and Methods. Twenty-six images were randomized in a survey and graded according to attractiveness by the orthodontists, general dentists, and laypeople. Photographs of gingival display, midline diastema, central incisor crown length, and lateral incisor crown width were manipulated with five minor changes in each. For smile arc and buccal corridor, two major changes were incorporated besides the ideal photograph. One-way ANOVA and Post Hoc analysis of the responses were measured for each group. Results. Most evaluators opined that the ideal smile in each category was the most acceptable. Orthodontists were more perceptive and exacting in accepting variations in the smile arc and buccal corridors. Dental professionals and laypeople indicated that either complete absence or a 0.5 mm of alterations in a gingival display, midline diastema, and crown length makes a smile beautiful and pleasant. Changes in crown width were not perceivable by all the three groups. Conclusion. Eastern Arabic laymen are more conscious about alterations in gingival display, midline diastema, and crown length in their smile. Hence, the orthodontist should pay attention to these factors during any orthodontic treatment.

Objective:The purpose of this study was to determine the perception of trained dental professionals and laypersons toward the esthetic impact of variations in the vertical position, width, and gingival height of the maxillary lateral incisor.Materials and Methods:The present study analyzed the perspective of smile photographs by dental professionals such as “fifty orthodontics and fifty general dental practitioners (GDPs)” as well as fifty laypersons, consisting of an equal number of male and female participants. Photographs edited to depict alteration of golden proportion, incisal length, and gingival height of lateral incisor. SPSS software was used to analyze the data and determine the significant difference within all the participants, at 0.05% level (95% confidence interval).Results:There was no significant difference in ranking between the genders. Golden proportion of 62%–67% were ranked the highest by orthodontists, whereas GDPs and laypersons preferred 67%. Regarding gingival display, corrected height of −0.5 and −1 mm received highest ranking from all the three groups. In case of lateral incisal length, −0.5 mm was ranked highest by laypersons, in contrast to −1 mm by orthodontists and GDPs.Conclusion:Specific differences were observed in the ranking of smile esthetics by health-care professionals and laypersons. Golden proportion of 62% and 67% were ranked the highest by orthodontists, whereas GDPs and laypersons preferred 67%. Corrected gingival height of −0.5 and −1 mm received highest ranking from all the three groups. In case of lateral incisal length, −0.5 mm was ranked highest by laypersons, in contrast to −1 mm by orthodontists and GDPs.

Objectives:The objective of this study is to assess the differences in facial profile preference among different layers of people in the United Arab Emirates. Facial profile self-awareness among the different groups was also evaluated.Materials and Methods:A total sample of 222 participants (mean [standard deviation] age = 25.71 [8.3] years, almost 80% of the participants were of Arab origin and 55% were males); consisting of 60 laypersons, 60 dental students, 60 general practitioners, 16 oral surgeons, and 26 orthodontists. Facial profile photographs of a male and female adult with straight profiles and a Class I skeletal relationship were used as a baseline template. Computerized photographic image modification was carried out on the templates to obtain seven different facial profile silhouettes for each gender. To assess differences in facial profile perception, participants were asked to rank the profiles of each gender on a scale from most to least attractive (1 [highest score] and 7 [least score]). Awareness and satisfaction with the facial appearance on a profile view was assessed using questionnaires completed by the non-expert groups.Results:The straight facial profile was perceived to be highly attractive by all five groups. The least attractive profiles were the bimaxillary protrusion and the mandibular retrusion for the male and the female profiles, respectively. Lip protrusion was more esthetically acceptable in females. Significant differences in perception existed among groups. The female profile esthetic perception was highly correlated between the expert groups (P > 0.05). Overall agreement between the non-expert group's perceptions of their own profiles and evaluation by the expert orthodontist was 51% (κ = 0.089). Candidates who perceived themselves as having a Class III facial profile were the least satisfied with their profile.Conclusions:Dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons had a similar perception trends in female and male aesthetic preference. Laypersons were more tolerant to profiles with bi-maxillary retrusion. The expert group's esthetic perception was highly correlated only for the female profiles. Most of the non-experts were unable to correctly identify their facial profile.

Objective: To determine the mean soft tissue facial profile for Persian adults as determined by the Holdaway analysis. Materials and Methods: Lateral cephalometric radiographs for 62 Persian adults with normal occlusion were used.

Objective:The aim of this study was to investigate the vertical mandibular asymmetry in a group of adult patients with different types of malocclusions, based on Angle's dental classification.Materials and Methods:A sample of 102 patients (age range 19–28) who went for routine orthodontic treatment in the institution were divided into four groups: Class I, 26 patients; Class II/1, 30 patients; Class III, 23 patients; and control group (CG) with normal occlusion, 23 patients. Condylar asymmetry index (CAI), ramal asymmetry index (RAI), condylar-plus-ramal asymmetry index values were measured for all patients on panoramic radiographs. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-test at the 95% confidence level (P < 0.05).Results:The results of the analysis showed that different occlusal types significantly affected the vertical symmetry of the mandible at the condylar level. Class I and Class II/1 malocclusion groups showed a significant difference in CAI values relative to the CG (P < 0.05, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the CG and Class III malocclusion group (P > 0.05). Comparisons between Class II/1 and Class I malocclusions revealed a significant difference in CAI values (P < 0.01).Conclusions:Both Class II/1 and Class I malocclusions patients had significantly higher CAI values compared to CG and Class III group. CAI value was significantly higher in Class II/1 malocclusion compared to Class I malocclusion. Both these malocclusions could act as a predisposing factor for having asymmetric condyles if left untreated.