form on smile esthetics Dustin Roden-Johnson, a Ronald Gallerano, b and Jeryl English c Houston, Tex Purpose: An attractive, well-balanced smile is a paramount treatment objective of modern orthodontic therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of buccal corridor spaces (BCS) and arch form on smile esthetics as perceived by laypeople, general dentists, and orthodontists. Material: Photo- graphs of 20 women treated by 2 orthodontists were collected: 1 group had narrow tapered or tapered arch forms, and the other had normal to broad arch forms. Photographs of 10 untreated women served as a control sample. All photographs showed the subjects smiling. The photographs were digitized and evaluated for BCS. Then, photographs with BCS were altered to eliminate the dark triangular areas, and those without BCS were altered by the addition of dark triangular areas at the lateral aspects of the smile. The altered photographs were randomized into a survey with the 30 original photographs. Three groups of raters (dentists, orthodontists, and laypeople) used a visual analogue scale to rate the photographs. Results: There was no signicant difference in smile scores related to BCS for all samples and for all viewers. Dentists rated broader arch forms as more esthetic than untreated arch forms. Orthodontists rated broader arch forms as more esthetic than narrow tapered arch forms and untreated arch forms. Lay people showed no preference of arch form. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the presence of BCS does not inuence smile esthetics. However, there are differences in how dentists, orthodontists, and laypeople evaluate smiles and in what arch form each group prefers. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:343-50) A n attractive, well-balanced smile is a para- mount treatment objective of modern ortho- dontic therapy. Extensive studies on facial features have resulted in the establishment of norms that orthodontists use as guidelines to evaluate facial forms and to direct therapy. Research supporting these established norms has been directed more to the lateral view of the face, and most of the knowledge that dictates the position of teeth has derived from these lateral cephalometric studies. However, Mackley 1 has demonstrated that a prole is not a reliable predictor of the appearance of a persons smile. Because the frontal aspect of soft and hard tissue treatment analysis has not been given as much atten- tion, orthodontists have quite often limited themselves to observations obtained from a 2-dimensional lateral image and have neglected how the facial musculature coordinates with the dentition. The study of frontal facial form dates back to the Egyptians, who depicted ideal facial esthetics as the golden proportion. This concept has been described extensively in classical art and orthodontic literature. Beside the golden proportion, other disciplines in dentistry have incorporated miscellaneous frontal mea- surements. Prosthodontists especially have taken inter- est in this aspect when considering the placement and selection of the anterior teeth in denture patients. 2,3 In 1914, Williams 4 concluded that the shape and angula- tion of the anterior teeth are dictated by the frontal shape of the patients face to provide a harmonious appearance. His philosophy of proper tooth selection the inversion of the patients frontal face form has remained popular for more than 85 years. Wylie 5 emphasized that the goal of orthodontic treatment should be to attain the best possible esthetic result, both dentally and facially. He also noted that these qualities should be judged not only in repose but also in animation. Although the smile is what most laypeople use to judge treatment success, 6 orthodontic treatment to correct dysfunction might conict with the dictates of facial harmony. 7 There seems to be a lack of research supporting frontal facial appraisal. This decit of knowledge perhaps contributed to Hulseys nding that patients who had received orthodontic treatment From the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Dental Branch Department of Orthodontics, Houston, Tex. a Orthodontic resident. b Associate clinical professor. c Chairman and graduate program director. Reprint requests to: Dr Dustin Roden-Johnson, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Dental Branch Department of Orthodontics, 6516 M. D. Anderson Blvd, Suite 371, Houston, TX 77030; e-mail, Dustin.D.Roden- Johnson@uth.tmc.edu. Submitted, November 2003; revised and accepted, February 2004. 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.013 343 had signicantly lower smile scores than subjects with untreated normal occlusion. 8 Research is scarce supporting certain aspects of frontal facial analysis, but there is not a total void. A few investigators have conducted in-depth studies of frontal facial form and what characteristics are consid- ered esthetically desirable. Studies have shown the muscular mechanics involved in the expression of a smile and the esthetic dimensions with which one might appraise the face. 7,9,10 Specic aspects of the smile have been related to esthetics, and it has been found that how the teeth relate to the curvature of the lip and the amount of gingival display can also affect the esthetics of the smile. 8,11-13 On comparing frontal facial features in repose and animation, Rigsbee et al 9 concluded that, in an attrac- tive smile, the upper lip elevated to reveal 10 mm of maxillary incisors, the mouth increased to 130% of its original width, and the lips separated approximately 12 mm; in general, women have more facial animation than men, and orthodontically treated subjects dis- played more maxillary incisors and gingivae than the untreated group. In this study, there was no mention as to what aspect of the smile contributed to facial esthetics; however, great attention was given to the facial mechanics of the smile. In 1992, Peck et al 11 described how orthodontists and surgeons are conditioned to see high gingival smile lines as undesirable and concluded that the gingival smile line is not inuenced by upper lip length, incisor crown height, mandibular plane angle, or palatal plane angle. They noted that the biological mechanisms of the gingival smile line are inuenced by anterior vertical maxillary excess, greater muscular capacity to raise the lip, and supplemental factors, such as excessive overjet and overbite. Peck and Peck 13 also noted that the location of the gingival smile line largely depended on the subjects sex. On average, the smile line in women is 1.5 mm higher than in men. According to Dierkes, 7 the beauty of the face can be broken down into horizontal, vertical, and transverse components, and all of these must harmonize with the contours of the face to produce a beautiful smile. He also stated that when these components of esthetics are contemplated, arch width is rarely a consideration, but he pointed out that altering the arch width in turn changes the gingival smile line, which is the relation- ship of the upper lip to the gingival line of the maxillary incisors. Hulsey 8 found the height of the upper lip in relation to the maxillary central incisors to be signicantly important to an attractive smile. He demonstrated that the most attractive smiles are those with the upper lip at the height of the gingival margin of the maxillary central incisors. The lower lip, according to Hulsey, 8 also inuences the attractiveness of a smile. It is more desirable to have the curvature of the lower lip follow the curvature of the incisal edges of the maxillary anterior teeth. Sarver 12 recently called attention to this curvature, dubbing it the smile arc. He pointed out that an orthodontically treated patient who meets all criteria of an orthodontic success could still have an unattractive smile. Hulsey 8 suggests that a reason for the unattractive appearance of orthodontically treated patients might be the attening of the smile arch to achieve acceptable occlusion. The distance between the lateral junction of the upper and lower lips and the distal points of the canines during smiling is known as the buccal corridor. As light passes posteriorly, it is reduced and thus gives the teeth a darker shade and therefore a smaller appear- ance. 14 The inuence of the buccal corridor on smile esthetics has been noted by some investigators to be of no esthetic consequence, whereas others believe that it is unattractive. Only a few studies have determined the esthetic value of the buccal corridor space (BCS). In 1995, Johnson and Smith 15 found that variables related to the buccal corridors or other measures of the width of the mouth during a smile showed no relation to extraction esthetics. Similarly, Gianelly, 16 on examin- ing the arch width of patients receiving extraction and nonextraction treatment, found no differences in arch width between the 2 treatment protocols and noted that extraction does not produce BCS. Hulsey 8 also ob- tained similar results when he compared the attractive- ness of orthodontically treated and untreated smiles. He examined the buccal corridors as a ratio: distance between the maxillary canines/distance between the corners of the smile. He then observed that the pattern of the scatter plot diagram showed that the buccal corridor ratio was not related to the smile scores. Currently, orthodontists can choose between sev- eral types of archwires. Most of the wires are pre- formed arch forms that can alter the width of the patients arch form. There has been some debate concerning the use of various arch forms, in terms of their long-term stability. 17-19 It has long been estab- lished that mandibular intercanine width returns to its original dimension and often contracts further when the patient is no longer in retention. However, we have noted little evidence supporting the role of arch form in smile esthetics. Dierkes 7 suggested that the wider arch form can improve esthetics in certain facial forms but also warned that it can change the smile line, which might affect facial esthetics. In that study, 7 he did not compare arch widths but, instead, demonstrated how American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics March 2005 344 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English changing the arch width might alter the attractiveness of a smile. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, and what is desirable to one might not be so to another. Dia- mond 20 reported that what a person nds attractive has much to do with the qualities of the surrounding population; other environmental factors, such as edu- cation, are also involved. As dental professionals, we must realize that this could have a great impact on the services provided to a patient because the concept of beauty might not be congruent between the patient and the doctor. Concerned with this, Wylie 5 astutely wrote that the laymans opinion of the human prole is every bit as good as the orthodontists and perhaps even better since it is not conditioned by orthodontic propaganda. Kokich et al 21 demonstrated that general dentists, orthodontists, and laypeople detect specic dental dis- crepancies at varying deviations. Orthodontists were more perceptive to altered dental esthetics than general dentists, and general dentists were more perceptive than laypeople. The investigators made it clear that, when a specic dental quality is examined by orthodontists, general dentists, or laypeople, a varying degree of deviation is necessary to warrant the deviation to detract from the esthetics of the person being evaluated. However, this study did not determine whether there are differences in what each group deems attractive. Brisman 21 had results similar to those of Kokich et al when he compared the drawings and photographs of maxillary central incisors of varying shape, symme- try, and proportion. In this study, he surveyed general dentists, dental students, and laypeople and discovered that the preferences in each group in relation to shape, symmetry, and proportion differed signicantly. There is a difference not only between what various groups consider esthetic but also in what is considered esthetic for different subjects according to their age, sex, and race. Evidence suggests that the esthetic components for men, women, and various races are not entirely the same. Frush and Fischer 3 pointed out that women tend to present a softer appearance than men and should therefore be given a softer, rounder, and more delicate dental appearance. Rigsbee et al 9 found that women have greater facial animation than men when smiling. Women also tend to show more of the maxillary incisors at rest and in animation than do men. 23 Age also has an effect on the architecture of a smile because, with age, the upper lip tends to conceal more of the maxillary incisors, with a concomitant greater degree of mandibular incisor display. 3 In their study comparing the perceptions of dentists and laypeople, Kokich et al 21 used photographs of smiles that were altered with 1 of 8 common anterior esthetic discrepancies in varying degrees of deviation. To limit error, the investigators adjusted a specic anatomical feature in the photograph to create a new image. They asked the person being surveyed to score the 2 photographs at different times and compared the ratings of the 2 smiles. This allowed the investigators to make deviations in the image and understand the inuence of the deviation on esthetics. Some investigators have noted a difference in how laypeople and dentists evaluate smiles. 21,22 There are also differences in smile esthetics related to sex, age, and race. 3,9,21,23 To ascertain the variation of the concept of smile esthetics as it relates to the width of the treated arches, we surveyed orthodontists, general dentists, and laypeople, using only 15- to 30-year-old females as subjects for evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS Posttreatment frontal smile photographs and study models of 20 female patients were obtained from 2 orthodontic ofces. Because of some variation in the structure of a smile according to age, sex, and race, we focused on the esthetics of female subjects 15 to 30 years of age. This was done to limit the scope of the variables and to decrease the dilution of the results. Ten patients were selected from each orthodontic ofce, and mandibular study models were categorized by arch form according to the Rocky Mountain Arch Form Template. One orthodontists patients represented nar- row tapered and tapered (NT) arch forms, and the others patients represented normal to broad arch forms (NB). A sample of 10 orthodontically untreated female subjects from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Dental Branch with Class I molar occlusion and good anterior alignment volunteered to have perioral photographs taken while smiling. Impres- sions of these volunteers were also obtained to verify acceptable occlusion and classify arch forms. The photographs from all groups were standardized with Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, Calif). The images were converted to black and white and then cropped to include only the perioral region. To standardize size and resolution, each picture was con- verted to approximately 5 2.5 in, with 1000 pixel resolution. Once the perioral photographs had been standard- ized, they were evaluated for BCS. In images of patients with BCS, the spaces were digitally removed: teeth-like images were placed in the distal aspect to the most visible tooth in the lateral aspects of the smile (Fig 1), thereby eliminating the dark space between the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 127, Number 3 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English 345 dentition and the lateral commissures of the mouth in the smile position. In images of patients without BCS, teeth were digitally removed from the distal aspects of the denti- tion where the teeth met with the lateral commissures of the smile (Fig 2). These alterations created the appear- ance of dark triangular spaces in the lateral aspects of the smile. After these alterations, the 30 original photographs and the 30 digitally altered images were then randomly assorted, numbered, and placed in an 8.5 11-in survey binder. The binder contained 60 black and white perioral photographs of combined altered and unaltered samples. To reduce error, we used some of the same techniques as Kokich et al 21 ; each person surveyed was asked to evaluate the esthetics of the same smile twice1 digitally altered and the other not. A visual analogue scale score sheet was created with a 10-cm bar, as shown in Figure 3. The evaluator was then asked to score the smile according to his or her preference for what is more or less attractive and given the following instructions: Please complete the following survey by evaluating the smiles for the esthetic value of teeth and lip appearance. Disregard facial blemishes, any variation in teeth shade, or picture quality. The purpose of this survey is for you (the evaluator) to assess the attractiveness of the entire smile and how the teeth appear within the lips. The smiles are to be graded using the scales from unattractive to attractive. You may place your mark anywhere on the scale but do so in a vertical fashion. Please examine several smiles in the book rst to calibrate yourself for the evaluation process but once you have started please do not ip back and please do not compare any of the photos or scores to one another. The survey was distributed to 20 orthodontists, 20 dentists, and 20 laypeople. Because it has been found that older subjects are more aware of dental character- istics than younger ones, all evaluators in this study were between the ages of 28 and 64 years. The scores were measured manually with digital calipers and entered onto an Excel spread sheet (Microsoft Corpo- ration, Redmond, Wash). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), 2-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc anal- ysis, and 4-way ANOVA (rater source corridor modify) were used to evaluate the data collected. RESULTS The results of our survey are shown in the tables. The subsets represent statistically signicant differ- ences between groups. All numbers that fall within 1 subset have no signicant differences, nor do the Fig 1. A, Original photograph of patient with BCS. B, Digitally altered photograph, in which BCS was eliminated. Fig 2. A, Original photograph of patient without BCS. B, Digitally altered photograph, in which BCS was added. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics March 2005 346 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English numbers that overlap from 1 subset to the next. Only the numbers in different subsets that do not overlap have signicance. Of the 30 raw images that were collected, 14 showed BCS and 16 did not. The NT group and the control group each had 6 smiles that displayed BCS. The NB group had 2 smiles that displayed BCS in the unaltered form. Table I shows the means for the groups in homo- geneous subsets of the 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing the differences between the raters. Orthodontists scored the survey differently than did dentists and laypeople and on average delivered a lower score. There was no signicant difference in how dentists and laypeople scored the survey. Table II shows the means for the groups in homo- geneous subsets of the 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing the differences between the sources of the pictures. There were signicant differ- ences in how the pictures from the 3 sources were scored by the surveyed groups collectively. According to the data shown, the highest scores were received by the NB sample of smiles, and the control (nontreated) sample received the lowest scores. Table III shows the means for the groups in homogeneous subsets of the 2-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing the differences be- tween raters with the consideration of source. There were several differences in how the groups of raters scored the different sources of smile photographs. Orthodontists preferred NB arch forms over the control and NT arch forms but did not differentiate between NT or control smiles. Dentists also preferred NB arch forms over the control, but there were no signicant difference in how the dentists scored the sample of NT relative to control or NB. The laypeople did not score any of the 3 groups of smiles obtained differently. Table IV shows the means for the groups in homogeneous subsets of the 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing the differences in how the raters scored BCS. All of the means are represented in 1 subset, thus showing that no group of raters differentiated between the presence or absence of BCS relative to smile esthetics. Table V shows the means for the groups in homo- geneous subsets of the 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing the differences in how the raters scored for the digital alteration (modication). Al- though all means are not expressed in 1 subset, no one group of raters scored modication differently. DISCUSSION Espeland and Stenvik 6 noted that most young adults give more attention to how their anterior teeth appear than to occlusion. Thus, one must ask why so much science has been devoted to function and not to appearance. This is not to say that function should not be an imperative treatment goal but rather that esthetics should be given equal consideration. This study exam- ined the effects of BCS and arch form, to contribute to the empirical data about frontal facial appraisal. Buccal corridor spaces have been discussed in the literature for some time and have been described by several investigators as undesirable. 14,16,24,25 Other in- vestigations have noted that BCS do not have a rela- tionship to smile esthetics; this study supports these ndings. 8,15 This investigation is unique in that each smile was evaluated twice, once with BCS and once without BCS, thus reducing error associated with se- lecting representative populations of each group. The results might also reect that the digital alterations were not signicant enough to produce a noticeable effect on smile esthetics. As described by Kokich et al, 21 there is a threshold level that a digital alteration must exceed for the viewer to detect it. If enough teeth are deleted from the lateral aspects of the smile, there would be some detraction from smile esthetics, but the smile would probably appear unnatural. In this study, each investigator evaluated the altered and unaltered photo- graphs side by side and collectively agreed on an adequate degree of alteration. Recently, attention has been paid to the perceptions of laypeople and dentists when comparing altered esthetics. 21,22 This study also demonstrates a difference in how dentists, orthodontists, and laypeople evaluate smiles. Here, orthodontists rated the smiles differently from laypeople and dentists, with the latter 2 groups expressing no difference in their esthetic scoring. This might be because most orthodontists have received more formal training on smile esthetics than laypeople and dentists or have been biased with the recent emphasis on broader arch forms. However, it does not indicate that the orthodontists perceptions are more astute than those of laypeople or dentists. It is more likely that orthodontists perceptions have been skewed Fig 3. Visual analogue scale used to evaluate esthetic value of smile photographs. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 127, Number 3 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English 347 by their training, as stated by Wylie. 5 Orthodontists tend to adopt a treatment philosophy and use subjective evaluation when treating patients. If the orthodontists perception of esthetics is not congruent with the pa- tients perception, then the result might not be accept- able to the patient, even if the patients function is improved. 22 Hulsey 8 supported this notion when he found that patients who had received orthodontic treat- ment received signicantly lower smile scores. Per- haps, in the study conducted by Hulsey, 8 the survey panels ideas of esthetics deviated enough from the orthodontists that the treated patients were deemed more unattractive than the untreated. Johnson and Smith 15 found, on examining smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of 4 rst premolars, that there was a difference in smile scores in the patients selected from the 2 orthodontists, but there was no difference in extraction versus nonex- traction patients. In other words, the group surveyed showed a predilection for 1 orthodontists patients over the other. Perhaps arch forms could have been the delineating factor, but this was not evaluated in their study. Contrary to Hulsey, this study indicated that both treated groups received signicantly higher smile scores than the untreated group. 8 The NB arch forms received higher scores than did the NT arch forms when all scores from the 3 groups were combined. However, on closer examination of the surveyed groups score differential, there was less distinction between the treated and untreated smile scores. Orthodontists tended to prefer the NB smiles over the NT and untreated, and this might be attributed to bias associated with the orthodontists in this study. A poststudy interview with these orthodontists found Table I. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets of 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing differences between raters Rater Subset 1 2 Orthodontists 47.9 Dentists 49.8 Lay people 50.7 Signicance 1 1 Table II. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets of 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing differences between sources of pictures Source Subset 1 2 3 Control 46.9 NT 49.2 NB 52.3 Signicance 1 1 1 Table III. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets of 2-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing differences between raters with consideration of source Rater source Subset 1 2 3 Orthodontists control 44.7 Orthodontists NT 46.4 46.4 Dentists control 46.6 46.6 Laypeople control 49.7 49.7 Dentists NT 50 50 Laypeople NT 51.1 Laypeople NB 51.2 Orthodontists NB 52.7 Dentists NB 52.8 Signicance .9 .186 .35 Table IV. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets of 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing that there are no differences in how raters scored for presence or absence of BCS Rater corridor Subset Orthodontists present 47.7 Orthodontists not present 48.2 Dentists present 49.6 Dentists not present 50 Laypeople present 50.6 Laypeople not present 50.8 Signicance .057 Table V. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets of 1-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis, showing differences in how raters scored for presence or absence of digital alteration (modication) Rater modication Subset 1 2 Orthodontists not present 47.4 Orthodontists present 48.5 48.5 Dentist not present 49.8 49.8 Dentist present 49.8 49.8 Laypeople not present 50.6 Laypeople present 50.8 Signicance .242 .312 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics March 2005 348 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English that most used normal to broad arch forms when treating their patients. A follow-up study surveying a more representative sample of orthodontists nation- wide would be indicated to determine whether there is a predilection for all orthodontists to treat patients with a broader arch form. To shed some light on this question, G&H Wire Company and Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, which produce the 5 arch forms that were used to grade the subjects nal casts, were asked what percentage of wires of each shape they sold. Rocky Mountains .016 .022-in stainless steel wires in normal and ovoid arch forms accounted for 72% of total sales, whereas the tapered and narrow tapered represented only 24%. For .017 .025-in wires, the tapered and narrow tapered ac- counted for 27% of sales, whereas the normal and ovoid accounted for 61%. Only 8% of total wires sold by G&H were in the Bioform arch shape, which very closely matches Rocky Mountains pentamor- phic forms. Of that 8%, the narrow tapered and tapered were equally matched with the normal and ovoid. The G&H wire with the highest sales (61%) was the Trueform 1, which is very close to the normal arch form. Clearly, orthodontists purchase more of the broader arch forms; this substantiates the preference of the orthodontists who participated in this study. The dentists surveyed for this study had no preference of arch form but did prefer treated sub- jects over untreated ones. It is apparent that dentists were sensitive to the alignment of the teeth but not to the width of the arch form as related to the smile. Laypeople were even less perceptive to a smiles arch form and alignment, expressing no predilection for any smile group. Our results show that orthodon- tists were more perceptive to variations in the smiles than dentists, who were more perceptive than lay- people. There was no difference in how the groups scored the altered and unaltered photographs; this demon- strated that the photographic alteration did not detract from the natural appearance of the smile. This supports the results of the pilot study. 26 Further research is needed to determine what people nd to be esthetically pleasing. From this study, it is apparent that more orthodontists prefer broader arch forms; however, according to Nojima et al, 27 narrow to narrow tapered forms are more prevalent in whites. Are orthodontists routinely using broad arch forms in practice, and, if so, are they the pretreatment forms of the patients? It has been suggested that arch forms have a tendency to return to their original shapes, 18 so is the routine use of broader arch forms setting up a generation for more relapse? A long-term study of arch forms that were changed from narrower to broader and the correla- tion of relapse at 10 years or more posttreatment would answer this question. Certainly, Charles Tweed 28 found that the fuller smiles that Angle advocated relapsed enough to need retreatment. Are we doomed to repeat history? CONCLUSIONS 1. Orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople evaluate smiles differently. 2. Orthodontists prefer normal to broad arch forms over untreated and narrow to tapered arch forms. 3. Dentists prefer treated patients over untreated ones but make no distinction in their preference of arch form in treated patients. 4. Laypeople have no preference between treated or untreated arch forms. 5. The presence or absence of BCS had no effect on the ratings of the smiles in any of the 3 groups. REFERENCES 1. Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63:183-9. 2. Kraijicek JA. Simulation of natural appearance. J Prosthet Dent 1962;12:28-33. 3. Frush JP, Fischer RD. The dynesthetic interpretation of the dentogenic concept. J Prosthet Dent 1958;8:558-68. 4. Williams JL. A new classication of human tooth forms with special reference to a new system of articial teeth. Dent Cosmos 1914;56:627-8. 5. Wylie WL. The mandibular incisorits role in facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1955;25:32-41. 6. Espeland LV, Stenvik A. Perception of personal dental appearance in young adults: relationship between occlusion, awareness, and satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:234-41. 7. Dierkes JM. The beauty of the face: an orthodontic perspective. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;SE:89-95. 8. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970;57:132-44. 9. Rigsbee OH, Sperry TP, BeGole EA. The inuence of facial animation on smile characteristics. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog- nath Surg 1988;4:233-9. 10. Proft W, Fields H. Contemporary orthodontics. Saint. Louis: Mosby; 2000. 11. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod 1992;62:91-100. 12. Sarver D. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120: 98-111. 13. Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:105-26. 14. Lombardi RE. The principles of visual perception and their clinical application to denture esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 29:358-82. 15. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile esthetics without orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four rst premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:162-7. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 127, Number 3 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English 349 16. Gianelly AA. Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:1:25-8. 17. BeGole EA, Fox DL, Sadowsky C. Analysis of change in arch form with premolar expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:307-15. 18. De La Cruz A, Sampson P, Little R, rtun J, Shapiro PA. Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:518- 29. 19. Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, Alexander RG. A computer- ized analysis of the shape and stability of the mandibular arch from. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:478-83. 20. Diamond J. The third chimpanzee. New York: Harper Collins; 1992. 21. Kokich V, Kiyak AH, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and laypeople to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-24. 22. Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists and patients concepts. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:345-52. 23. Vig RG, Brundel GC. Kinetics of anterior display. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:502-4. 24. Blitz N. Criteria for success in creating beautiful smiles. Oral Health 1997;87:38-42. 25. Sarver D, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantication: part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:116-27. 26. Roden-Johnson D. Ability of dental practitioners to detect digitally altered photographs. Presented as a table clinic at the Greater Houston Dental Meeting; 16-19 February 2001. 27. Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, Sinclair PM. A compar- ative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001;71:195-200. 28. Tweed C. Interview with Charles Tweed. J Clin Orthod 1967;1:142-8. Editors of the International Journal of Orthodontia (1915-1918), International Journal of Orthodontia & Oral Surgery (1919-1921), International Journal of Orthodontia, Oral Surgery and Radiography (1922-1932), International Journal of Orthodontia and Dentistry of Children (1933-1935), International Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery (1936-1937), American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery (1938-1947), American Journal of Orthodontics (1948-1986), and American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofa- cial Orthopedics (1986-present) 1915 to 1931 Martin Dewey 1931 to 1968 H. C. Pollock 1968 to 1978 B. F. Dewel 1978 to 1985 Wayne G. Watson 1985 to 2000 Thomas M. Graber 2000 to present David L. Turpin American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics March 2005 350 Roden-Johnson, Gallerano, and English
Smile Aesthetics Satisfaction Scale Development Andvalidation of A New Brieffive-Item Measure of Satisfactionwith Smile Aesthetics in Adults and The Elderly
DYNESTHETIC DENTURESThe provided title is too long at 55 characters. Here is a concise, SEO-optimized title of less than 40 characters:TITLE DYNESTHETIC DENTURE ESTHETICS