Open Access Original

Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32612

Analysis of Smile Aesthetic Changes With Fixed

Orthodontic Treatment
Received 09/24/2022
Ruchi Saini 1 , Neha Thakur 2 , Reshu Jindal Goyal 1 , Kriti Sharma Rai 3 , Hiroj Bagde 4 , Ashwini Dhopte 5
Review began 09/27/2022
Review ended 12/15/2022 1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies (IDST)
Published 12/16/2022
Dental College, Ghaziabad, IND 2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Kalka Dental College,
© Copyright 2022 Meerut, IND 3. Department of Orthodontics, Private Practice, Delhi, IND 4. Department of Periodontology, Rama
Saini et al. This is an open access article Dental College and Research Centre, Kanpur, IND 5. Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Rama Dental College
distributed under the terms of the Creative and Research Centre, Kanpur, IND
Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0.,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided Corresponding author: Ruchi Saini, [email protected]
the original author and source are credited.

Abstract
Introduction: The mouth and teeth are vital in facial aesthetics and the face as a whole is the most critical
individual component determining one's physical look. As dentists, we need to be aware that this might
significantly alter the care given to a patient since the patient's and the dentist's ideas of beauty may be quite
different. This study sought to ascertain how the general public, general dental specialists, and orthodontics
all rated the attractiveness of patients who had received orthodontic treatment using a visual scale, as well
as how the facial reference could be used to gauge the improvement in smiles.

Methodology: The attractiveness of 80 continuously treated patients was assessed by comparing their pre-
and post-treatment posed grin images. The attractiveness of participants' smiles was evaluated using the
Visual Simple Scale, which measures affect, and the Graph of Facial Stylish Reference, which measures
objectively. “Making a Jazzy Face Chart" - The analysts were able to fairly evaluate changes in elements such
as the symmetry of the smile twist, the position of the gingival peak of the front teeth relative to each other,
the height of the incisal edges of the front teeth, the width of the connector band of the front six teeth, and
the general tip of the front teeth by referring to photographs taken during treatment. We put the Visual
Basic Scale to the test by having five male orthodontists, five male general dental specialists, and five male
laypeople rate how much of an improvement they noticed between the before and after photos of a patient's
smile.

Results: According to the findings of the first section of the research, orthodontic treatment generally leads
to an increase in all indicators. Some instances, however, demonstrated worsening in characteristics such as
grin arc consonance, gingival zenith location relative to each other, and incisal edge height. The second half
of this research revealed that the opinions of orthodontic specialists, general dentists, and the general
public varied with regard to the beauty of a smile.

Conclusion: Based on this research, we can say the following: Orthodontic treatment led to improvements in
many of the variables that contribute to smile attractiveness, factors include the interproximal width of
contact area, the height of the incisal margins of the front teeth, and the location of the gingival zenith in
relation to one another, to name a few. The results of this research support the idea that the aesthetics of the
smile should be assessed at the last stages of orthodontic treatment when fine adjustments are being made.

Categories: Dentistry, Oral Medicine

Keywords: laymen, general dentists, orthodontists, fixed orthodontic treatment, smile

Introduction
The mouth and teeth are regarded as crucial in facial aesthetics [1,2] and the face as a whole is the most
significant individual component defining one's physical appearance. It is crucial to improve the cosmetic
results of orthodontic treatment, and this may be done by understanding the factors that contribute to the
harmony between teeth and soft tissues during a beautiful smile [3]. As dentists, we need to be aware that
this might significantly alter the care given to a patient since the patient's and the dentist's ideas of beauty
may be quite different. One of the first and most effective methods of boosting a person's confidence and
happiness via their outward appearance. We all agree that a winning grin must be lively, energetic, and
youthful-looking [3]. The lips curl inward to create a grin. A smile is made up of several different parts,
including the incisal margins, the gingival embrasures, the gingival height of contour, and the inter-
proximal contact zones. A consonant arc, especially one accompanied by a smile, is more attractive than a
non-consonant one [4].

The gingival show, gingival relative heights, and gingival shape are additional aspects that contribute to the
overall aesthetics of a smile in all age groups globally [4]. Most people who get braces are looking to improve
their smile and general facial appearance. In the past decade, analysis of the smile and the creation of new

How to cite this article

Saini R, Thakur N, Jindal Goyal R, et al. (December 16, 2022) Analysis of Smile Aesthetic Changes With Fixed Orthodontic Treatment. Cureus
14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612
 smiles have become integral parts of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning [5]. Thanks to recent
developments in technology, orthodontists may now include data on the patient's dynamic lip-tooth
interaction on their list of issues and in their biomechanical plan. Success rates, and the likelihood of
failure, may be increased by the use of simple and trustworthy processes, which can even help to eradicate
performance faults. In this regard, the Diagram of Facial Aesthetic References (DFAR) might be a useful
supplementary diagnostic tool.

The purpose of this study was for the researchers to determine how orthodontics, general dental specialists,
and the general public all rated the attractive quality of patients who underwent orthodontic therapy using a
visual scale, as well as how the facial reference can be used to measure the improvement in smiles.

Materials And Methods

The study was carried out in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, which was
approved by the ethical committee of the Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies (IDST) Dental
College with reference number 2021/345. We chose two photos at random from the digital collection: one
frontal, unposed, pre-treatment photograph, and one post-treatment photo with the subject's head in its
natural posture. Inclusion also requires the absence of craniofacial deformities or other diseases and a
normal upper lip length (with a balanced face, the length of the upper lip (distance from subnasale to
stomion) is equal to one-third of lower facial height (subnasale to menton)).

Ultimately, 80 individuals with a range of malocclusions who were treated in succession were included in
the sample. Fifty-two patients out of the total 80 had received extraction treatment (Table 1).

Consonance Width of the connector

Patient Position of the gingival zenith of the Relative height of the incisal Relative tip
of the smile band in the anterior six
number anterior teeth relative to each other edges of the anterior teeth of the teeth
arc teeth

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
1

Patient
Improved Worsened Improved Improved Improved
2

Patient
Improved No change Improved Improved Improved
3

Patient
Worsened Improved Worsened Improved Improved
4

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
5

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
6

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
7

Patient
No change No change No change Improved Improved
8

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
9

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
10

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
11

Patient
Improved No change Improved Improved Improved
12

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
13

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved No change
14

Patient

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 2 of 11

 15 Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
16

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
17

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
18

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
19

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
20

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
21

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
22

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
23

Patient
Improved No change Improved Improved Improved
24

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
25

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
26

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
27

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
28

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
29

Patient
No change Improved Improved Improved Improved
30

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
31

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
32

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
33

Patient
Improved Worsened Improved Improved Improved
34

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
35

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
36

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
37

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
38

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
39

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 3 of 11

 Patient Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
40

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
41

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
42

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
43

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
44

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
45

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
46

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
47

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
48

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
49

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
50

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
51

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
52

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
53

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
54

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
55

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
56

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
57

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
58

Patient
Worsened Improved Improved Improved Improved
59

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
60

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
61

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
62

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
63

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
64

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 4 of 11

 Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
65

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
66

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
67

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
68

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
69

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
70

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
71

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
72

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
73

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
74

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
75

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
76

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
77

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
78

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
79

Patient
Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved
80

TABLE 1: Improvement in smile aesthetics with the treatment of all patient data

Pictures of these patients' posed smiles, both before and after therapy, were taken with their heads held in
their usual positions. The photos were imported into photo editing software (Adobe Photoshop, version 7,
Adobe Frameworks, San Jose, California), and made some adjustments with the built-in vertical (from the
nose tip to the delicate tissue pogonion) and diagonal (from the zygomatic prominence) guides. A Visual
Simple Scale and a Graph of Facial Stylish References both created in Adobe Photoshop were used to
evaluate the photos.

The patients' smiles were initially assessed in Adobe Photoshop using a facial aesthetics reference diagram.
Each tooth is encased in a frame that carefully follows its contours. DFAR, in its original name, alludes to the
highest apical points of the gingival contour, known as apexes. The current reappraisal was performed to
include the positions of the gingival papillae's papillary tips and highlight the contact places. When you
connect these locations, you will get lines that may be used as benchmarks for grading how a smile is
perceived. Referencing the idea of dental connections, the band formed by the papillary line's relationship to
the line of the contact point is called the connector band. Six horizontal grin lines are created when the top
and lower lip contours are used. In order from the neck down, they are as follows: (a) the cervical line; (b) the
papillary line; (c) the contact points line; (d) the incisal line; (e) the upper lip line; and (f) the lower.

The second half of this research compared the perceived beauty of smiles before and after orthodontic

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 5 of 11

 treatment using a jury composed of five male orthodontists, five male general dentists, and five male
laymen. A slide presentation created in Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2010 (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA)
and including the standardized pictures was used. All the photos had their identifying details blurred off,
and then they were given random numbers between 1 and 140. Members of the panel were given a quick,
illustrative overview of the Visual Analogue Scale. The judges used a 100mm Visual Analogue Scale on
which they assigned points ranging from 0 (very ugly) to 10 (extremely attractive) for each smile they saw. It
took the judges just 20 seconds only to rate each shot.

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows, Version 16.0, Chicago, SPSS Inc.) was used to
input and evaluate evaluations from the sample size. Each assessor group employed an independent t-test
and a paired samples t-test for intergroup and intergroup comparisons. The threshold of statistical
significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results
For the purpose of this study, the digital archives of the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopaedics were searched for photos of posed smiles taken before and after orthodontic treatment on a
total of 80 patients. The consonance of the grin arc, relative gingival zenith positions of the front teeth, and
tooth length were the factors considered. Height of the incisal edges relative to the rest of the front teeth,
width of the connector band in the front six teeth, and height of the front tooth's tips.

T-test for comparing means of pre-treatment assessments by different raters, independent samples general
dentists' opinions varied from those of orthodontic specialists and laypeople, as shown by photographs. The
P-values for these variations were less than 0.001 and less than 0.025, respectively, indicating their
statistical significance. Table 2 shows that orthodontists, general dentists, and general person's opinions on
the attractiveness of smiles before orthodontic treatment were similar where each parameter was compared
within groups.

Variables N Mean Standard deviation P-value

Orthodontist 80 3.11 0.89

<0.001
Dentist 80 3.23 0.76

Orthodontist 80 3.56 0.88

0.345
General person 80 3.35 1.11

Dentist 80 3.78 0.67

0.014
General person 80 3.39 1.45

TABLE 2: Pre-treatment assessment comparison using independent samples t-test to compare

mean values from different raters

Test for mean differences amongst evaluators using independent samples t-statistics after treatment
analysis of the photographs revealed discrepancies in the opinions of orthodontists, general dentists, and
general persons. Table 3 shows that when comparing the evaluations of orthodontists and dentists, as well
as orthodontists and general persons and dentists and general persons, there are statistically significant
differences, with P-values of 0.001, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively in post-treatment assessment.

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 6 of 11

 Variables N Mean Standard deviation P-value

Orthodontist 80 6.23 0.34

<0.001
Dentist 80 5.09 0.56

Orthodontist 80 6.24 0.89

0.00
Layman 80 5.56 0.45

Dentist 80 5.06 0.76

0.01
Layman 80 5.57 0.34

TABLE 3: Independent samples t-test to compare mean values between assessors in the post-
treatment assessment comparison

Comparative studies
The pre-treatment and post-treatment assessment improvement in each assessor group was compared using
a t-test. Orthodontists, general dentists, and general persons all agreed that, when treatment was
completed, the patient's smile was noticeably better than it had been before. Table 4 demonstrates that the
enhancements in smile aesthetics were statistically significant across all three groups, with a P-value of
0.001.

Variables Assessment N Mean Standard deviation P-value

Post-treatment 80 6.23 0.98

Orthodontist <0.001
Pre-treatment 80 3.34 0.67

Post-treatment 80 5.07 0.78

Dentist <0.001
Pre-treatment 80 3.47 0.45

Post-treatment 80 5.45 0.67

General person <0.001
Pre-treatment 80 3.39 1.11

TABLE 4: Paired samples t-test to compare the improvement in the pre-treatment and post-
treatment assessment in each assessor group

Discussion
The primary goal of any cosmetic dentistry procedure is to improve the appearance of the patient's smile.
Despite its significance, however, the underlying components of a grin are seldom examined. These traits are
either fixed or malleable depending on the situation since they make up different elements of each person.
So, dentists can only make judgments about these traits without any control over them. A person's beauty is
more determined by their grin than by the relaxed state of their facial soft tissues. According to Proffit et al.
[6], there are two primary types of smiles: the posed or social grin, and the emotional smile. The posed grin is
exhibited to the public because it is the one most focused on during orthodontic diagnosis (the social smile)
and because it is easy to replicate. Therefore, in this study, we used photographs of staged smiles to assess
how much orthodontic therapy improved smile attractiveness. Full-face images have been used in studies by
Shaw et al. [7], Mackley et al. [8], Moore et al. [9], and Hunt et al. [10]. The problem, as pointed out by Shaw
et al. [2], is that the background facial attractiveness is often more assertive than the individual dental
condition.

When trying to find a visual representation of an issue, people often make a number of assumptions and
follow a set of rules that may lead to either an underestimating of faults or an overvaluation of rules,
resulting in paradigms that are not based on hard scientific evidence. Using tried-and-true techniques may
increase success odds and reduce or do away with mistakes in execution altogether. An additional diagnostic
tool that works well for this is the DFAR. Seventy patients were selected at random from among those who
had had orthodontic therapy for various forms of malocclusion. After patients were treated, they were
photographed with a staged grin in front of a white background to compare results. Proffit et al. [6] defined

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 7 of 11

 the consonance of the grin arc as the angle formed between the incisal margins of the upper front teeth and
the lower lip when the two are joined in a friendly smile. Sixty-six out of seventy evaluated cases showed an
increase in grin arc consonance. For the other four, two examples showed no change and two indicated
worsening consonance, presumably owing to incorrect bracket alignment. Those patients that did not
improve despite treatment had excellent consonance, to begin with. However, two deterioration examples
highlight the significance of precise section location, the must to routinely be auditing smile feel
throughout the doing and itemizing phases of therapy, and the necessity of correcting defects in section
arrangement. It was found that the incisal margins of most patients grew in height during the course of the
examination, demonstrating the ease with which this border may be measured while the patient is held.
McLaughlin et al. [11] recommend setting the sections for the central incisor and canine at the same distance
from the incisal edge, with the section for the lateral incisor located 0.5mm incisal to the central incisor. It
was determined where the gingival emphasis of the upper and lower front teeth should be by referencing the
gingival line on the Facial Stylish Reference Graph. The gingival line is formed when the gingival peaks of
the canines, maxillary laterals, and central incisors come together.

Sixty-four of the cases treated showed an increase to a convex position of the gingival zenith, whereas two
instances deteriorated and four cases showed no change. Since a concave gingival line is less aesthetically
pleasing, further operations like gingivoplasty and selective grinding may be performed to boost the
attractiveness of a patient's smile. Contact lines were used to assess the connection band. However, the
contact areas between the teeth are not shown by these lines. The connector band tightened after therapy in
all of the instances examined in this research. While precise measurements were out of the question because
of the inherent magnification inaccuracy of the pictures, the connector's visual "Hand Glider" form was used
as a proxy for quality. A vertical line was drawn from the apparent midpoint of the incisal edges to the
apparent midpoint of the gingival zenith to find the relative apex of the teeth. The value of this parameter
was calculated by observing the angle at which the vertical lines began to deviate from the face's midline.
When applied to real-world data, this statistic showed a general upward trend.

The second section of this research project assessed the smile's attractiveness. The perioral pictures were
judged on a scale from 1 to 10. Parekh et al. [12] study discovered that male and female orthodontists judged
smile aesthetics differently. Because of the potential for bias between male and female reviewers, we
selected an all-male review panel; nevertheless, comparing the ratings of male and female reviewers is
beyond the scope of this particular investigation. The mean scores among assessor groups were compared for
the post-treatment photos using an independent samples t-test (Table 1). None of the three sets of raters in
this research agreed with one another, whether they were orthodontists, general dentists, or the general
public.

According to Flores et al. [13], Aesthetic appreciation differs from person to person since it is shaped by their
unique life history and network of relationships. Different perspectives on what constitutes physical
attractiveness exist between the general public and the medical and cosmetic industries for similar reasons.
Annemieke et al. [14] showed that orthodontists and their patients had different assessments of the same
smiles. Kokich et al. [15] and Roden-Johnson et al. [16] concur with the study's findings that orthodontic
specialists, ordinary dentists, and the general public have different aesthetic preferences. Before and after
photos of a patient's smile were compared using the paired samples t-test to see how much of an
improvement there was in smile aesthetics (Table 2). After receiving therapy, participants' smiles were
shown to have improved significantly in this research. The levels of satisfaction indicated by orthodontists
(P=0.001), general dentists (P=0.001), and the general public (P=0.001) all increased significantly.

We observed that the beauty of a smile may be significantly enhanced with fixed orthodontic treatment and
that the assessment of a smile's attractiveness varies across orthodontists, general dentists, and the general
public. Some factors, such as the consonance of the smile arc and the relative height of the incisal margins,
might worsen with time, as shown by objective smile aesthetics evaluation. Orthodontists, in their capacity
as smile designers, need to be aware that fixed orthodontic treatment may have a major impact on the
aesthetics of patients' smiles [17,18]. At the end of orthodontic treatment, when the finer details are being
worked out, the doctor should take into account how the patient's smile looks [19]. More research is needed
to determine if orthodontic treatment methods (extraction vs. non-extraction, intrusion vs. retraction, etc.)
have an effect on smile aesthetics.

Simply fixing individual teeth is no longer acceptable in the profession of dentistry nowadays. A greater
number of patients are requesting final results that are not just mechanically and physiologically sound but
also aesthetically beautiful. Bleaching, bonding, and veneering have made it possible to undergo a wide
range of cosmetic dental procedures in addition to healing and reconstructing the damaged dentition,
frequently reversing the visible signs of aging. Considering these variables, a study by Calamia et al.
employed the usage of a Comprehensive Esthetic Evaluation Form for smile design and treatment planning
[20]. Although a very different methodology than what we employed for our study, the above study did
observe very good patient compliance which warrants further research using the methodology.

Orthodontists are increasingly utilizing the rapidly-growing levels of technology, with smile designing and
aesthetics being at the forefront of this treatment approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis
regarding this modality were conducted by Ahmed et al. [21], where the study aimed to assess the efficiency

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 8 of 11

 of dental practices' use of digital smile design approaches. These methods were employed in various
branches of medicine, and the clinicians examined and categorized each of those branches as well as
assessed the dependability and predictability of these digital methods. The utilization of technology (in the
form of usage of cameras) in this study was on a similar line as ours, although the rest of the study design
differed quite a lot from ours.

A qualitative research approach with respect to establishing the importance of aesthetics in the field of
orthodontic treatment might also be viable along with all of the different methodologies that we have
discussed since a qualitative approach makes it possible to comprehend the meaning of smiles and their
significance in our daily encounters. Qualitative approaches focus on gathering experiences and articulated
meanings through conversations, open-ended inquiries, and interviews [22,23]. Teenagers with
malocclusion were particularly ashamed to expose their teeth when speaking to others, according to one
prominent example [24]. Not all teenagers, though, have sensitive teeth when they smile [25]. Additionally,
despite the fact that it may appear like an easy task, qualitative interviews gave insight into the anxiety
experienced by orthodontic patients when asked to smile for a photograph [26]. According to a study, these
patients' grin expressions may not only be related to their pre-treatment worries but also to the presence of
unfavorable white spots lesions [27].

Since qualitative data is abundant, there are numerous strategies for obtaining it from online platforms and
social media. After all, smiling might be viewed as a way to spread optimism on social media and even as a
way to speed up the hiring process on those sites [28]. Whether someone chooses to smile with their teeth
visible or not, there are a variety of ways to do so on social media, as has been noted in earlier study results
[29,30]. For instance, extracting tweets showed that certain dentofacial traits might be crucial in changing
smiling behavior to prevent bullying [31]. Additionally, people with malocclusion voiced worries about their
pictures appearing on social networking sites [32]. Social media may distract users, preventing them from
making expressive facial expressions like smiles [33].

In orthodontic research, questionnaires are another common instrument that is used widely [34].
Incorporating specialized or pre-designed questionnaires into smile studies could provide an effective and
uncomplicated way to gauge how patients, doctors, and laypeople perceive smiles. For instance, the smile
esthetics-related quality of life questionnaire [35] examines the sub-domains of confidence with one's smile,
awareness of altered smile aesthetics, and the impact of smile aesthetics in a social context. A rapid tool for
such investigations, the five-item Smile Aesthetics Pleasure Scale (SASS) questionnaire, can be used to
quantify smile satisfaction in adults [36]. For orthodontic patients, having a beautiful smile is crucial, and
many important factors are frequently thought to have an impact on overall satisfaction [37]. Many times,
elements influencing happiness with smiles are analyzed, categorized, and differentiated using
questionnaire-based surveys and visual analog ratings. In one study, participants responded to a specific
questionnaire about the appeal of their smiles by gazing into a picture of their natural grins. The findings
showed that individuals were happy when their smiles displayed all of their teeth and some gingiva, but they
were unhappy when their smiles displayed an unbalanced amount of gingiva [38]. According to surveys on
how buccal corridors are perceived during smiles, orthodontists and prosthodontists greatly value smiles
with them, in contrast to laypeople who think smiles with and without them are similar [39]. One intriguing
study found that orthodontic specialists were more receptive to gummy smiles than dentistry students [40].
Other research looking at the aesthetics of smiles with displayable recession revealed that when dental
professionals scored the smiles on a visual analog scale, they were aware of these aesthetic restrictions (i.e.,
the recession's presence) [41]. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) and the subjective aesthetic smile
presentation were successfully linked by questionnaire-based investigations [42]. According to one study,
when utilizing the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire to evaluate the psychosocial
impact of smile aesthetics, the severity of malocclusion is a key predictor [43].

The study limitations involve the use of a limited sample size and a particular area of the population. The
study has not considered various other parameters of esthetics such as smile line and extraction or non-
extraction cases into considerations so can be included in further research.

Conclusions
Orthodontic therapy improved several facets of a smile that contribute to its aesthetic appeal. These
included the level of the incisal edges of the front teeth in respect to one another, the consonance of the grin
bend, the overall tip of the teeth, the placement of the gingival apex in relation to one another, and the
breadth of the connector band. The aesthetic value of patients' smiles was significantly improved by
orthodontic treatment, according to orthodontists, general dentists, and average people. Clinicians can use
the facial aesthetic reference diagram to objectively assess the elements influencing a patient's smile and
carry out the necessary therapies. The findings of this study lend credence to the notion that evaluation of
the smile's aesthetics should occur during the latter phases of orthodontic treatment when minor changes
are being made.

Additional Information
Disclosures

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 9 of 11

 Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institute of Dental
Studies and Technologies (IDST) Dental College issued approval ref 2021/345. Animal subjects: All authors
have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In
compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services
info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the
submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial
relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an
interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other
relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

References
1. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M: The gingival smile line . Angle Orthod. 1992, 62:91-100. 10.1043/0003-
3219(1992)0620091:TGSL2.0.CO;2
2. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR: The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness
of young adults. Am J Orthod. 1985, 87:21-6. 10.1016/0002-941690170-8
3. Peck H, Peck S: A concept of facial esthetics . Angle Orthod. 1970, 40:284-318. 10.1043/0003-
3219(1970)040<0284:ACOFE>2.0.CO;2
4. Sarver DM: The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc . Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2001, 120:98-111. 10.1067/mod.2001.114301
5. Morley J, Eubank J: Macroesthetic elements of smile design . J Am Dent Assoc. 2001, 132:39-45.
10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0023
6. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM: Contemporary orthodontics. Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis; 2007.
7. Shaw WC, Humphreys S: Influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on teacher expectations .
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1982, 10:313-19. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1982.tb00401.x
8. Mackley RJ: An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment . Angle Orthod. 1993, 63:183-9.
10.1043/0003-3219(1993)0630183:AEOSBA2.0.CO;2
9. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE: Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2005, 127:208-13. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.11.027
10. Hunt O, Hepper P, Johnston C, Stevenson M, Burden D: Professional perceptions of the benefits of
orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2001, 23:315-23. 10.1093/ejo/23.3.315
11. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi H: Systematized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Mosby International
Ltd., Mosby; 2001. 10.1093/ortho/29.2.153-a
12. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S: Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal
corridor space as judge by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod. 2006, 76:557-63. 10.1043/0003-
3219(2006)076[0557:AOVITS]2.0.CO;2
13. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW: Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in
dental and facial views. J Orthod. 2004, 31:204-9. 10.1179/146531204225022416
14. Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B: Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dentofacial
appearance in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003, 123:127-32.
10.1067/mod.2003.84
15. Kokich VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA: Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental
esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999, 11:311-24. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x
16. 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, 127:343-50. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.013
17. Kantharaju VH, Shivaprakash G, Shamnur N: The relationship between posttreatment smile esthetics and
the ABO objective grading system: class I extraction versus non-extraction cases. Turk J Orthod. 2020,
34:39-45. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20030
18. Mujagic M, Pandis N, Fleming PS, Katsaros C: The Herbst appliance combined with a completely customized
lingual appliance: a retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes using the American Board of
Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Int Orthod. 2020, 18:732-9. 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.07.002
19. Thaleia K, Tatjana O, Carlalberta V, Nikolaos P, Georgios K: The effect of orthodontic treatment on facial
attractiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2022, 44:636-49. 10.1093/ejo/cjac034
20. Calamia JR, Levine JB, Lipp M, Cisneros G, Wolff MS: Smile design and treatment planning with the help of
a comprehensive esthetic evaluation form. Dent Clin North Am. 2011, 55:187-209.
10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.012
21. Ahmed M, Tharwat M, Sanad A, Abdelhamid K, Ali H, Tammam R: From conventional to virtual smile design
systems: a current systematic review. Preprints. 2021, 2021040572. 10.20944/preprints202104.0572.v1
22. Castellan CM: Quantitative and qualitative research: a view for clarity . Int J Educ. 2010,
2:10.5296/ije.v2i2.446
23. Monique H, Inge H, Ajay B: Review of qualitative research methods . Teaching and Learning Anthropology
Journal. 2021, 4:10.5070/t30053826
24. Ferrando-Magraner E, García-Sanz V, Bellot-Arcís C, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM, Paredes-
Gallardo V: Oral health-related quality of life of adolescents after orthodontic treatment. A systematic
review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019, 11:e194-202. 10.4317/jced.55527
25. Twigge E, Roberts RM, Jamieson L, Dreyer CW, Sampson WJ: Qualitative evaluation of pretreatment patient
concerns in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016, 150:49-57. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.017
26. Çifter M: A qualitative analysis of dental photography in orthodontics: the patient’s perspective . BioMed
Res Int. 2018, 1:9. 10.1155/2018/5418592
27. Yadav P, Desai H, Patel K, Patel N, Iyengar S: A comparative quantitative - qualitative assessment in
orthodontic treatment of white spot lesion treated with 3 different commercially available materials - in
vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019, 11:776-82. 10.4317/jced.56044
28. Oikarinen EL, Sinisalo J: Personality or skill: a qualitative study of humorous recruitment advertising

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 10 of 11

 campaign on social media. Int J Internet Mark Advertising. 2017, 11:22-43. 10.1504/IJIMA.2017.082990
29. Bell BT: 'You take fifty photos, delete forty-nine and use one’: a qualitative study of adolescent image-
sharing practices on social media. Int J Child Comput Interact. 2019, 20:64-71. 10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.03.002
30. Vermeulen A, Vandebosch H, Heirman W: #Smiling, #venting, or both? Adolescents’ social sharing of
emotions on social media. Comput Hum Behav. 2018, 84:211-19. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.022
31. Chan A, Antoun JS, Morgaine KC, Farella M: Accounts of bullying on Twitter in relation to dentofacial
features and orthodontic treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 2017, 44:244-50. 10.1111/joor.12487
32. Patel N, Hodges SJ, Hall M, Benson PE, Marshman Z, Cunningham SJ: Development of the Malocclusion
impact questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life of young people with
malocclusion: part 1 - qualitative inquiry. J Orthod. 2016, 43:7-13. 10.1080/14653125.2015.1114712
33. Aagaard J: Mobile devices, interaction, and distraction: a qualitative exploration of absent presence . AI &
Soc. 2016, 31:223-31. 10.1007/s00146-015-0638-z
34. Rodrigues L, Jamenis SC, Jawale B, Patil S, Garcha V: A questionnaire study to assess and evaluate the
common gingival problems faced by patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. Int J Maxillofac
Imaging. 2020, 6:101-7. 10.18231/j.ijmi.2020.025
35. Saltovic E, Lajnert V, Saltovic S, Kovacevic Pavicic D, Pavlic A, Spalj S: Development and validation of a new
condition-specific instrument for evaluation of smile esthetics-related quality of life. J Esthet Restor Dent.
2018, 30:160-7. 10.1111/jerd.12362
36. Lajnert V, Kovacevic Pavicic D, Pavlic A, Pokrajac-Bulian A, Spalj S: Smile aesthetics satisfaction scale:
development and validation of a new brief five-item measure of satisfaction with smile aesthetics in adults
and the elderly. Int Dent J. 2018, 68:162-70. 10.1111/idj.12362
37. Chang CA, Fields HW, Beck FM, et al.: Smile esthetics from patients’ perspectives for faces of varying
attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011, 140:171-80. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.022
38. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM: Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and
influence on personality. Angle Orthod. 2007, 77:759-65. 10.2319/082606-349
39. Nimonkar S, Godbole S, Belkhode V, Nimonkar P, Pisulkar S: Effect of rehabilitation of completely
edentulous patients with complete dentures on temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review. Cureus.
2022, 14:28012. 10.7759/cureus.28012
40. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL: Influence of gingival display on smile aesthetics in Japanese . Eur J Orthod. 2010,
32:633-7. 10.1093/ejo/cjq013
41. Musskopf ML, Rocha JM, Rösing CK: Perception of smile esthetics varies between patients and dental
professionals when recession defects are present. Braz Dent J. 2013, 24:385-90. 10.1590/0103-
6440201302223
42. Campos AC, Nuñez MO, Leles CR: Effect of anterior teeth display during smiling on the self-perceived
impacts of malocclusion in adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2011, 81:540-5. 10.2319/051710-263.1
43. Lukez A, Pavlic A, Trinajstic Zrinski M, Spalj S: The unique contribution of elements of smile aesthetics to
psychosocial well-being. J Oral Rehabil. 2015, 42:275-81. 10.1111/joor.12250

2022 Saini et al. Cureus 14(12): e32612. DOI 10.7759/cureus.32612 11 of 11