GÖRSEL ANALOG SKALASI KULLANILARAK UZMAN DİŞ HEKİMLERİ VE DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ESTETİK PARAMETRELERİNİN ALGILANMASINDAKİ FARKLILIĞIN İNCELENMESİ

Year 2020, Volume: 30 Issue: 4, 607 - 613, 15.10.2020

Sümeyye Cansever Harun Reşit Bal Nuran Yanıkoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.658038

Abstract

Amaç: Bütün insanlar estetik olarak hoş yüz özelliklerine sahip olmayı istemektedirler , bunların içinde de en çok arzuladıkları güzel bir gülümsemedir. Son yıllarda dental estetiğe olan ilgi giderek artmaya başlamıştır. Diş hekimleri ve halktan bireyler arasında estetik değerlendirmelerde farklılıklar olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada uzman diş hekimleri ve diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin hastaların tam gülümseme esnasında, değişen estetik parametrelerinin belirlenerek estetik algılarının ve çekici bir gülümsemenin nelere sahip olması gerektiğinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Materyal ve Metod: Hastalardan gülümseme halinde çekilmiş 24 fotoğraf, uzman diş hekimlerine ve diş hekimliği öğrencilerine rastgele bir sırayla gösterilip çekiciliklerine göre değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan kişilerden orta hat kayması, okluzal düzlem eğimi, dişeti görünürlük(gummy smile) miktarı ve santral dişlerin diğer dişlere göre oranlarının düzenlemesi yapılmış fotoğrafları değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Fotoğraflarda 0.5’er mm artan oranlarla Adobe Photoshop programı kullanılarak değişiklikler uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular: Uzman diş hekimleri, 1. ve 5. Sınıf öğrencilerinin değişen estetik parametreleri algılarının incelendiği çalışmada istatiksel analiz değerlendirmeleri sonucunda gruplar arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulundu ( p<0,05).
Sonuçlar: Çalışmada; eğitim seviyesi ile bireylerdeki estetik algının değiştiği, 0,5 mm’lik değişimlerin uzman diş hekimleri tarafından daha doğru saptanabildiği tespit edildi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Görsel analog skalası, Estetik, Orta hat sapması, Gummy smile
Examination of The Difference in Perception of Esthetic Parameters of Specialist Denstist and Dental Students by Using Visual Analog Scale
ABSTRACT
Aim: All people want to have aesthetically pleasing facial features, among them a beautiful smile that they most desire. In recent years, interest in dental aesthetics has begun to grow. It is seen that there are differences in aesthetic evaluations between dentists and individuals. It was aimed to evaluate the aesthetic perceptions and what an attractive smile should have in order to determine the changing aesthetic parameters during the full smile of the patients by profesional dentists and dental students.
Material and Methods: 24 photos taken in smiles from the patients were asked to be shown to the profesional dentists and dental students in random order and evaluated according to their attractiveness. Participants in the study were asked to rate the images of midline deviation, occlusal plane inclination, gummy smile and ratio of central teeth to other teeth. Photos have been modified by using Adobe Photoshop program in increments of 0.5 mm.
Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of statistical analysis evaluations in the study which examined the perception of changing aesthetic parameters of first and fifth grade students of specialist dentists. ( p<0,05)
Conclusions: In this study was determined that the aesthetic perception in the individuals changed with the education level and the changes in the 0.5 mm were more accurate by the expert dentists.
Keywords: Visual analogue scale, Esthetic, Midline deviation, Gummy smile

Keywords

Görsel analog skalası, Estetik, Orta hat sapması

References

• 1. Machado AW, Moon W, Gandini LG, Jr. Influence of maxillary incisor edge asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. May 2013;143(5):658-664.
• 2. McLeod C, Fields HW, Hechter F, Wiltshire W, Rody W, Jr., Christensen J. Esthetics and smile characteristics evaluated by laypersons. Angle Orthod. Mar 2011;81(2):198-205.
• 3. Nascimento DC, Santos ER, Machado AW, Bittencourt MAV. Influence of buccal corridor dimension on smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17:145-150.
• 4. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod. Sep 2007;77(5):759-765.
• 5. Koidou VP, Rosenstiel SF, Rashid RG. Celebrity smile esthetics assessment: Smile angulation. J Prosthet Dent. May 2017;117(5):636-641.
• 6. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent. Jan 1984;51(1):24-28.
• 7. Kokich VO, Jr., Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-324.
• 8. Abu Alhaija ESJ, Al-Shamsi NO, Al-Khateeb S. Perceptions of Jordanian laypersons and dental professionals to altered smile aesthetics. Eur J Orthodont. Aug 2011;33(4):450-456.
• 9. Ker AJ, Chan R, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson's perspective A computer-based survey study. J Am Dent Assoc. Oct 2008;139(10):1318-1327.
• 10. Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthodontist. Jul 2006;76(4):557-563.
• 11. Rodrigues CDT, Magnani R, Machado MSC, Oliveira OB. The Perception of Smile Attractiveness Variations from Esthetic Norms, Photographic Framing and Order of Presentation. Angle Orthodontist. Jul 2009;79(4):634-639.
• 12. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. Characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Apr 2008;133(4):515-523.
• 13. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Aug 2006;130(2):141-151.
• 14. Rosenstiel SF, Rashid RG. Public preferences for anterior tooth variations: a web-based study. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002;14(2):97-106.
• 15. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Dec 2007;132(6):748-753.
• 16. Chiche G, Pinault A. Artistic and scientific principles applied to esthetic dentistry. Esthetics of Anterior Fixed Prosthodontics. Quintessence. 1994:13-32.
• 17. Silva BP, Jimenez-Castellanos E, Martinez-de-Fuentes R, Greenberg JR, Chu S. Laypersons' perception of facial and dental asymmetries. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. Nov-Dec 2013;33(6):e162-171.
• 18. Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. Jun 1995;1(2):105-126.
• 19. Talic N, Alomar S, Almaidhan A. Perception of Saudi dentists and lay people to altered smile esthetics. Saudi Dent J. Jan 2013;25(1):13-21.
• 20. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological Problems in Measurement of Pain - Comparison between Verbal Rating Scale and Visual Analog Scale. Pain. 1975;1(4):379-384.
• 21. Ritter DE, Gandini LG, Pinto Ados S, Locks A. Esthetic influence of negative space in the buccal corridor during smiling. Angle Orthod. Mar 2006;76(2):198-203.
• 22. Richards MR, Fields HW, Jr., Beck FM, et al. Contribution of malocclusion and female facial attractiveness to smile esthetics evaluated by eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Apr 2015;147(4):472-482.
• 23. Machado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. Jul-Aug 2014;19(4):136-157.
• 24. Correa BD, Vieira Bittencourt MA, Machado AW. Influence of maxillary canine gingival margin asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Jan 2014;145(1):55-63.
• 25. 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. Sep 2004;31(3):204-209; discussion 201.
• 26. Ribeiro JB, Figueiredo BA, Machado AD. Does the presence of unilateral maxillary incisor edge asymmetries influence the perception of smile esthetics? Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2017;29(4):291-297.
• 27. Fradeani M. Esthetic rehabilitation in fixed prosthodontics. vol. 1. Esthetic analysis: a systematic approach to prosthetic treatment. Quintessence. 2004:35-61.
• 28. Fradeani M. Esthetic rehabilitation in fixed prosthodontics. vol 1. Esthetic analysis: a systematic approach to prosthetic treatment. Quintessence. 2004;63-11.
• 29. Fradeani M. Evaluation of dentolabial parameters as part of a comprehensive esthetic analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent. Apr 2006;1(1):62-69.
• 30. Rufenacht CR. Fundamentals of esthetics. Hanover Park: Quintessence. 1990:67-134.
• 31. Silva BP, Jimenez-Castellanos E, Finkel S, Macias IR, Chu SJ. Layperson's preference regarding orientation of the transverse occlusal plane and commissure line from the frontal perspective. J Prosthet Dent. Apr 2017;117(4):513-516.
• 32. Sarver DM. Principles of cosmetic dentistry in orthodontics: Part 1. Shape and proportionality of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Dec 2004;126(6):749-753.
• 33. Üner DD, İzol BS, İpek F, Elbir M, Tosun B. Dudağın Yeniden Konumlandırılması ve Gingivektomi Yapılarak Gummy Smile Tedavisi Bir Olgu Sunumu (Gummy Smıle). J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2015;10:25-29.
• 34. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Influence of gingival display on smile aesthetics in Japanese. Eur J Orthod. Dec 2010;32(6):633-637.
• 35. Al Taki A, Khalesi M, Shagmani M, Yahia I, Al Kaddah F. Perceptions of Altered Smile Esthetics: A Comparative Evaluation in Orthodontists, Dentists, and Laypersons. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:7815274.
• 36. Ousehal L, Aghoutan H, Chemlali S, Anssari IF, Talic N. Perception of altered smile esthetics among Moroccan professionals and lay people. Saudi Dent J. Oct 2016;28(4):174-182.