Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Table I.
Very unattractive
Overall dentition
Teeth
Alignment
Color
Shape
Size
Tooth-crown proportions*
Dentition proportions
Gums
Color
Contour
Very attractive
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Women
Men
Table II.
Dental feature
Factor
loading
Alignment
Tooth color
Shape
Size
Crown proportions
Dentition proportions
Gum color
Gum contour
Variance explained
.136
.116
.145
.143
.144
.140
.128
.140
83.7%
Com
.825
.602
.940
.914
.926
.874
.730
.884
Attractive
Factor
loading
.157
.108
.169
.151
.165
.160
.153
.158
66.2%
Unattractive
Com
.690
.325
.801
.638
.766
.723
.658
.699
Factor
loading
.140
.103
.158
.155
.155
.147
.130
.151
75.8%
Com
.722
.394
.914
.890
.890
.796
.622
.839
Factor
loading
.135
.121
.144
.145
.145
.138
.126
.139
83.4%
Com
.808
.649
.924
.931
.937
.846
.708
.864
Factor
loading
.137
.111
.148
.142
.144
.142
.129
.143
82.7%
Com
.821
.541
.954
.884
.904
.887
.724
.898
Com, Communality.
Table III.
Results of linear regression for each dental feature with overall attractiveness score
R2 values from univariate linear regressions
Dental feature
Alignment
Tooth color
Shape
Size
Crown proportions
Dentition proportions
Gum color
Gum contour
Entire sample
Attractive
Unattractive
Women
Men
.831
.632
.864
.814
.837
.820
.605
.740
.698
.388
.764
.555
.674
.628
.402
.458
.725
.462
.773
.707
.716
.668
.484
.630
.796
.685
.857
.820
.822
.785
.577
.706
.853
.561
.864
.778
.834
.839
.599
.766
P .01.
Table IV.
Mean scores (standard deviations) for various dental features by dentition attractiveness and sex
Attractiveness
Attractive (n 16)
Unattractive (n 44)
P
Sex
Female (n 31)
Male (n 29)
P
Overall
Alignment
Tooth color
Shape
Size
Teeth crown
proportions
Dentition
proportions
Gum
color
Gum
contour
3.5 (.43)
2.1 (.60)
.000
3.5 (.38)
2.4 (.66)
.000
3.5 (.35)
2.6 (.63)
.000
3.5 (.30)
2.5 (.59)
.000
3.4 (.31)
2.5 (.53)
.000
3.3 (.26)
2.5 (.48)
.000
3.4 (.42)
2.3 (.57)
.000
3.3 (.44)
2.6 (.54)
.000
3.3 (.37)
2.5 (.52)
.000
2.7 (.86)
2.3 (.77)
.045
2.8 (.76)
2.4 (.75)
.054
2.9 (.71)
2.7 (.66)
.276
2.9 (.67)
2.6 (.69)
.069
2.9 (.62)
2.5 (.57)
.013
2.9 (.56)
2.5 (.55)
.018
2.8 (.71)
2.3 (.68)
.012
3.0 (.60)
2.7 (.58)
.098
2.8 (.56)
2.6 (.63)
.073
0.669
0.669 0.182 0.403
0.53
Table V.
Mean ratios (standard deviations) for maxillary right and left central incisors (entire sample and
groups by dentition attractiveness and sex)
Right central
incisor
Left central
incisor
.83 (.09)
.82 (.09)
.80 (.10)
.84 (.08)
.061
.78 (.10)
.83 (.08)
.046
.82 (.08)
.84 (.10)
.526
.81 (.10)
.82 (.08)
.907
Several studies attempted to evaluate the significance of various dental features in terms of overall
dental attractiveness, most of them considering only 1
feature or a few features.18,25 Dunn et al19 assessed the
importance of several dental features: symmetry, tooth
shade, number of teeth displayed, height of maxillary
lip line, and number of natural-looking teeth. Nevertheless, other elements, such as gingival appearance,
tooth shape, and tooth proportions, were not evaluated.
It was suggested that the cumulative visual impact of
the anterior dentition often transcends the sum of the
individual parts.26
In this study, we investigated dental esthetics and
considered as many dental factors as possible. Both
subjective and objective measures were used and their
importance assessed in overall dental attractiveness.
Although all dental features investigated contributed similarly to overall dental attractiveness, a hierarchy of features was established. Interestingly, tooth
shape was most strongly associated with overall attractiveness, whereas the color of teeth and gums had the
weakest association with the overall score (although
still statistically significant). Only very minor changes
in the ranking order occurred when the sex of a subject
or the attractiveness of a dentition was considered.
Table VI. Mean values (standard deviation) of golden percentage calculations (entire sample and groups by dentition
attractiveness and sex)
Golden %
10 %
15 %
Right
25 %
25 %
15 %
10 %
Left
Canine
Lateral incisor
Central incisor
Central incisor
Lateral incisor
Canine
13.2 (2.1)
14.4 (1.7)
23.2 (1.4)
23.1 (1.2)
13.9 (1.9)
12.3 (1.7)
13.0 (1.8)
13.3 (2.2)
.634
15.1 (1.1)
14.1 (1.9)
.022
22.8 (1.1)
23.3 (1.4)
.193
22.8 (1.2)
23.3 (1.2)
.139
14.6 (1.3)
13.6 (2.1)
.085
11.9 (1.4)
12.5 (1.9)
.247
12.5 (2.0)
14.0 (1.9)
.012
14.6 (1.7)
14.1 (1.7)
.314
23.3 (1.4)
23.1 (1.4)
.606
23.2 (1.1)
23.0 (1.2)
.488
14.3 (1.3)
13.5 (2.4)
.141
12.2 (1.6)
12.4 (2.0)
.604
REFERENCES
1. Adams GR. Physical attractiveness research: toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Hum Dev 1977;20:217-39.
2. Bull R, Rumsey N. The social psychology of facial appearance.
New York: Springer-Verlag; 1988.
3. Alley TR, Hildebrandt KA. Determinants and consequences of
facial aesthetics. In: Alley TR, editor. Social and applied aspects
of perceiving faces. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p.101-40.
4. Mueser KT, Grau BW, Sussman S, Rosen AJ. Youre only as
pretty as you feel: facial expression as a determinant of physical
attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;46:469-78.