Aesthetic Preference in the Transverse Orientation of the Occlusal Plane in Rehabilitation: Perspective of Laypeople and Dentists
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Data Collection Tool
3. Process of Editing Images in Adobe Photoshop©
3.1. Creation of Symmetrical Facial Model: Control
3.2. Creation of the Asymmetric Facial Model
3.3. Creation of Image A: Occlusal Plane Parallel to the Interpupillary Line
3.4. Creation of Image B: Occlusal Plane Parallel to the Labial Commissures
3.5. Creation of Image C: Occlusal Plane Mean between the Interpupillary Line and the Commissure Line Equivalent to 1.5 Degrees
4. Sample
5. Ethical Considerations
6. Data Analysis
7. Results
8. Discussion
9. Limitations and Strengths
10. Conclusions
11. Future Research
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Revilla-León, M.; Meyer, M.J.; Barrington, J.J.; Sones, A.; Umorin, M.P.; Taleghani, M.; Zandinejad, A. Perception of occlusal plane that is nonparallel to interpupillary and commissural lines but with the maxillary dental midline ideally positioned. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 122, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shetty, S.; Zargar, N.M.; Shenoy, K.; Rekha, V. Occlusal Plane Location in Edentulous Patients: A Review. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2013, 13, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Sarin, A.; Singh, G.; Raghav, D.; Singh, D.; Sahoo, S. Systematic assessment of the various controversies, difficulties, and current trends in the reestablishment of lost occlusal planes in edentulous patients. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Driscoll, C.F.; Morgano, S.M.; McGarry, T.J.; Guckes, A.D. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, e1–e105. [Google Scholar]
- Chaturvedi, S.; Thombare, R. Cephalometrically assessing the validity of superior, middle and inferior tragus points on ala-tragus line while establishing the occlusal plane in edentulous patient. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2013, 5, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, M.; Ayub, N.; Imran, M.; Nawaz, K.; Sami, A. Occlusal Plane Evaluation In Dentate Patients For Complete Denture Prosthodontic Practice. J. Ayub. Med. Coll. Abbottabad 2020, 32, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ahmad, I.M. Anterior dental aesthetics: Facial perspective. Br. Dent. J. 2005, 199, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Petricevic, N.; Celebic, A.; Celic, R.; Baucic-Bozic, M. Natural head position and inclination of craniofacial planes. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2006, 19, 279–280. [Google Scholar]
- Moshaverinia, A.; Roohpour, N.; Ja, D. The position of the occlusal plane in natural and artificial dentitions as related to other craniofacial planes. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 105, 331. [Google Scholar]
- Bhat, W.; Mahadevan, R.; Nayar, S.; Bhuminathan, S. Relationship between occlusal plane and ala-tragus line in dentate individuals: A Clinical pilot study. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2015, 7, S95–S97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priest, G.; Wilson, M.G. An Evaluation of Benchmarks for Esthetic Orientation of the Occlusal Plane. J. Prosthodont. 2016, 26, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, B.P.; Tortora, S.C.; Stanley, K.; Mahn, G.; Coachman, C.; Mahn, E. Layperson’s preference of the transverse occlusal plane in asymmetric facial model. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019, 31, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elias, M.K.; Pudi, S.; Tirumala Ravali, C.; Rajasekhar, R.G.; Bhavan, C.Y. Layperson’s Preference Regarding Orientation of Transverse Occlusal Plane from the Frontal Perspective in Fabrication of a Complete Denture: A Cross-sectional Study. Cureus 2020, 12, e6650. [Google Scholar]
- Primozic, J.; Perinetti, G.; Zhurov, A.; Richmond, S.; Ovsenik, M. Assessment of facial asymmetry in growing subjects with a three-dimensional laser scanning system. Orthod. Craniofacial Res. 2012, 15, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alqattan, M.; Djordjevic, J.; Zhurov, A.I.; Richmond, S. Comparison between landmark and surface-based three-dimensional analyses of facial asymmetry in adults. Eur. J. Orthod. 2013, 37, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Song, W.-C.; Koh, K.-S.; Kim, S.-H.; Hu, K.-S.; Kim, H.-J.; Park, J.-C.; Choi, B.-Y. Horizontal Angular Asymmetry of the Face in Korean Young Adults With Reference to the Eye and Mouth. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 2164–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McAvinchey, G.; Maxim, F.; Nix, B.; Djordjevic, J.; Linklater, R.; Landini, G. The perception of facial asymmetry using 3-dimensional simulated images. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corte, C.C.D.; Da Silveira, B.L.; Marquezan, M. Influence of occlusal plane inclination and mandibular deviation on esthetics. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2015, 20, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, B.P.; Jiménez-Castellanos, E.; Finkel, S.; Macias, I.R.; Chu, S.J. Layperson’s preference regarding orientation of the transverse occlusal plane and commissure line from the frontal perspective. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, 513–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, W.-S.; Alshhrani, W.; Saglik, B.; Hansen, C. The commissure line of the mouth for orienting the occlusal plane. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016, 28, 243–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kokich, V.O.; Kokich, V.G.; Kiyak, H.A. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: Asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2006, 130, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, B.P.; Jimenez-Castellanos, E.; Martinez-de-Fuentes, R.; Greenberg, J.R.; Chu, S. Laypersons’ Perception of Facial and Dental Asymmetries. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, e162–e171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koidou, V.P.; Chatzopoulos, G.; Rosenstiel, S.F. Quantification of facial and smile esthetics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 119, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peck, S.; Peck, L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin. Orthod. 1995, 1, 105–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fradeani, M. Esthetic Rehabilitation in Fixed Prosthodontics. Esthetic Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Prosthetic Treatment, 1st ed.; Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc.: Hanover Park, IL, USA, 2004; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Farret, M.M. Occlusal plane canting: A treatment alternative using skeletal anchorage. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2019, 24, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokich, V.O.; Ma, H.A.K.; Shapiro, P.A. Comparing the Perception of Dentists and Lay People to Altered Dental Esthetics. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 1999, 11, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armalaite, J.; Jarutiene, M.; Vasiliauskas, A.; Sidlauskas, A.; Svalkauskiene, V.; Skarbalius, G.; Sidlauskas, M. Smile aesthetics as perceived by dental students: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ker, A.J. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson’s perspective: A computer-based survey study. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 139, 1318–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namano, S.; Behrend, D.A.; Harcourt, J.K. Angular asymmetries of the human face. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2000, 13, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
- Geron, S.; Atalia, W. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod. 2005, 75, 778–784. [Google Scholar]
- Padwa, B.L.; Kaiser, M.; Kaban, L.B. Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1997, 55, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Castellanos, E.; Orozco-Varo, A.; Arroyo-Cruz, G.; Iglesias-Linares, A. Prevalence of alterations in the characteristics of smile symmetry in an adult population from southern Europe. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 115, 736–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolffsohn, J.S.; Davies, L.N. Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2018, 68, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jansen, D.A.; Keller, M.L. Identifying the attentional demands perceived by elderly people. Rehabil. Nurs. 1998, 23, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olivares, A.; Vicente, A.; Jacobo, C.; Molina, S.; Rodriguez, A.; Bravo-González, L.-A. Canting of the occlusal plane: Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons. Med Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2013, 18, e516–e520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, B.; Uyar, R. The impact of occlusal plane cant along with gingival display on smile attractiveness. Orthod. Craniofacial Res. 2016, 19, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Image | Dentists n = 242 | Laypeople n = 236 | p ** |
---|---|---|---|
Control A p * | 176 (72.70%) 66 (27.30%) <0.001 | 169 (71.60%) 67 (28.40%) <0.001 | 0.785 |
Control B p * | 220 (90.90%) 22 (9.10%) <0.001 | 191 (80.90%) 45 (19.10%) <0.001 | 0.002 |
Control C p * | 216 (89.30%) 26 (10.70%) <0.001 | 173 (73.30%) 63 (26.70%) <0.001 | <0.001 |
A B p * | 209 (86.40%) 33 (13.60%) <0.001 | 167 (70.80%) 69 (29.20%) <0.001 | <0.001 |
A C p * | 174 (71.90%) 68 (28.10%) <0.001 | 153 (64.80%) 83 (35.20%) <0.001 | 0.096 |
B C p * | 102 (42.10%) 140 (57.90%) 0.017 | 107 (45.30%) 129 (54.70%) 0.172 | 0.482 |
Image | Dentists | Laypeople | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female n = 155 | Male n = 87 | p ** | Female n = 182 | Male n = 54 | p ** | |
Control A p * | 115 (74.2%) 40 (25.8%) <0.001 | 61 (70.1%) 26 (29.9%) <0.001 | 0.494 | 135 (74.2%) 47 (25.8%) <0.001 | 34 (63.0%) 20 (37.0%) 0.077 | 0.109 |
Control B p * | 143 (92.3%) 12 (7.7%) <0.001 | 77 (88.5%) 10 (11.5%) <0.001 | 0.330 | 152 (83.5%) 30 (16.5%) <0.001 | 39 (72.2%) 15 (27.8%) 0.002 | 0.064 |
Control C p * | 142 (91.6%) 13 (8.4%) <0.001 | 74 (85.1%) 13 (14.9%) <0.001 | 0.114 | 138 (75.8%) 44 (24.2%) <0.001 | 35 (64.8%) 19 (35.2%) 0.041 | 0.108 |
A B p * | 138 (89.0%) 17 (11.0%) <0.001 | 132 (72.5%) 50 (27.5%) <0.001 | 0.106 | 71 (81.6%) 16 (18.4%) <0.001 | 35 (64.8%) 19 (35.2%) 0.041 | 0.274 |
A C p * | 112 (72.3%) 43 (27.7%) <0.001 | 62 (71.3%) 25 (28.7%) <0.001 | 0.869 | 126 (69.2%) 56 (30.8%) <0.001 | 27 (50.0%) 27 (50.0%) 1.000 | 0.009 |
B C p * | 66 (42.6%) 89 (57.4%) 0.077 | 36 (41.4%) 51 (58.6%) 0.133 | 0.856 | 88 (48.4%) 94 (51.6%) 0.711 | 19 (35.2%) 35 (64.8%) 0.041 | 0.088 |
Image | Dentists | Laypeople | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤35 Years Old n = 145 | 36 to 45 Years Old n = 60 | >45 Years Old n = 37 | p ** | ≤35 Years Old n = 172 | 36 to 45 Years Old n = 15 | >45 Years Old n = 49 | p ** | |
Control A p * | 105 (72.4%) 40 (27.6%) <0.001 | 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0.001 | 28 (75.7%) 9 (24.3%) 0.003 | 0.903 | 124 (72.1%) 48 (27.9%) <0.001 | 12 (80.0%) 3 (20.0%) n.a. | 33 (67.3%) 16 (32.7%) 0.022 | 0.614 |
Control B p * | 135 (93.1%) 10 (6.9%) <0.001 | 54 (90.0%) 6 (10.0%) <0.001 | 31 (83.8%) 6 (16.2%) <0.001 | 0.204 | 142 (82.6%) 30 (17.4%) <0.001 | 13 (86.7%) 2 (13.3%) n.a. | 36 (73.5%) 13 (26.5%) 0.002 | 0.304 |
Control C p * | 133 (91.7%) 12 (8.3%) <0.001 | 51 (85.0%) 9 (15.0%) <0.001 | 32 (86.5%) 5 (13.5%) <0.001 | 0.309 | 128 (74.4%) 44 (25.6%) <0.001 | 12 (80.0%) 3 (20.0%) n.a. | 33 (67.30%) 16 (32.7%) 0.022 | 0.511 |
A B p * | 126 (86.90%) 19 (13.1%) <0.001 | 52 (86.70%) 8 (13.3%) <0.001 | 31 (83.8%) 6 (16.2%) <0.001 | 0.883 | 117 (68.0%) 55 (32.0%) <0.001 | 12 (80.0%) 3 (20.0%) n.a. | 38 (77.6%) 11 (22.4%) <0.001 | 0.311 |
A C p * | 107 (73.8%) 38 (26.2%) <0.001 | 44 (73.3%) 16 (26.7%) <0.001 | 23 (62.2%) 14 (37.8%) 0.188 | 0.358 | 111 (64.5%) 61 (35.5%) <0.001 | 10 (66.7%) 5 (33.3%) n.a. | 32 (65.3%) 17 (34.7%) 0.046 | 0.983 |
B C p * | 66 (45.5%) 79 (54.5%) 0.319 | 21 (35.0%) 39 (65.0%) 0.028 | 15 (40.5%) 22 (59.5%) 0.324 | 0.373 | 74 (43.0%) 98 (57.0%) 0.079 | 8 (53.3%) 7 (46.7%) n.a. | 25 (51.0%) 24 (49.0%) 1.000 | 0.497 |
Image | Area of Activity Related to Aesthetics | ||
---|---|---|---|
No n = 158 | Yes n = 84 | p ** | |
Control A p * | 120 (75.9%) 38 (24.1%) <0.001 | 56 (66.7%) 28 (33.3%) 0.003 | 0.123 |
Control B p * | 145 (91.8%) 13 (8.2%) <0.001 | 75 (89.3%) 9 (10.7%) <0.001 | 0.522 |
Control C p * | 142 (89.9%) 16 (10.1%) <0.001 | 74 (88.1%) 10 (11.9%) <0.001 | 0.671 |
A B p * | 132 (83.5%) 26 (16.5%) <0.001 | 77 (91.7%) 7 (8.3%) <0.001 | 0.080 |
A C p * | 112 (70.9%) 46 (29.1%) <0.001 | 62 (73.8%) 22 (26.2%) <0.001 | 0.630 |
B C p * | 72 (45.6%) 86 (54.4%) 0.301 | 30 (35.7%) 54 (64.3%) 0.012 | 0.139 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carvalho, A.L.; Costa, L.G.; Martins, J.M.; Manso, M.C.; Gavinha, S.; Herrero-Climent, M.; Ríos-Carrasco, B.; Falcão, C.; Ribeiro, P. Aesthetic Preference in the Transverse Orientation of the Occlusal Plane in Rehabilitation: Perspective of Laypeople and Dentists. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212258
Carvalho AL, Costa LG, Martins JM, Manso MC, Gavinha S, Herrero-Climent M, Ríos-Carrasco B, Falcão C, Ribeiro P. Aesthetic Preference in the Transverse Orientation of the Occlusal Plane in Rehabilitation: Perspective of Laypeople and Dentists. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212258
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarvalho, Ana Lidia, Liliana Gavinha Costa, Joana Meneses Martins, Maria Conceição Manso, Sandra Gavinha, Mariano Herrero-Climent, Blanca Ríos-Carrasco, Carlos Falcão, and Paulo Ribeiro. 2021. "Aesthetic Preference in the Transverse Orientation of the Occlusal Plane in Rehabilitation: Perspective of Laypeople and Dentists" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 22: 12258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212258
APA StyleCarvalho, A. L., Costa, L. G., Martins, J. M., Manso, M. C., Gavinha, S., Herrero-Climent, M., Ríos-Carrasco, B., Falcão, C., & Ribeiro, P. (2021). Aesthetic Preference in the Transverse Orientation of the Occlusal Plane in Rehabilitation: Perspective of Laypeople and Dentists. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12258. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212258