Establishment of a new relationship between posed smile width and lower facial height: A cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT

Objective: The present study is intended to add a new parameter that would be useful in orthodontic clinical evaluation, treatment planning, and determination of vertical dimension (at occlusion). Materials and Methods: Standardized videographic recording of 79 subjects during posed smile was captured. Each video was then cut into 30 photos using the free studio software. The widest commissure-to-commissure posed smile frame (posed smile width [SW]) was selected as one of 10 or more frames showing an identical smile. Lower third of the face is measured from subnasale to soft tissue menton using a digital vernier caliper. Two values were then compared. Ratio between lower facial height and posed SW was calculated. Results: The co-relation between smiling width and lower facial height was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.01). The ratio of lower facial height and smiling width was calculated as 1.0016 with a standard deviation (SD) = 0.04 in males and 1.0301 with an SD = 0.07 in females. The difference between the mean lower facial height in males and females was statistically significant with a t = 10.231 and P = 0.000. The difference between the mean smiling width in males and females was also statistically significant with a t = 5.653 and P = 0.000. Conclusion: In class I subjects with pleasing appearance, normal facial proportions, normal overjet and overbite, and average Frankfort mandibular angle, the lower facial height (subnasale to soft tissue menton) is equal to posed SW.

Key words:

Lower face height - posed smile width - vertical facial proportion

 

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Walder JF, Freeman K, Lipp MJ, Nicolay OF, Cisneros GJ. Photographic and videographic assessment of the smile: Objective and subjective evaluations of posed and spontaneous smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 793-801
• 2 Profitt W. Contemporary Orthodontics. 2nd ed.. Mosby; St Louis: 1997: p. 110
• 3 Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod 1992; 62: 91-100
• 4 Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: Revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 75: 328-38
• 5 Rigsbee 3^rd OH, Sperry TP, BeGole EA. The influence of facial animation on smile characteristics. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1988; 3: 233-9
• 6 Mackley RJ. An evaluation of smiles before and after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 183-9
• 7 Formby WA, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Longitudinal changes in the adult facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105: 464-76
• 8 Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 24-8
• 9 Ackerman MB, Ackerman JL. Smile analysis and design in the digital era. J Clin Orthod 2002; 36: 221-36
• 10 Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 1. Evolution of the concept and dynamic records for smile capture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 4-12
• 11 Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 116-27
• 12 Desai S, Upadhyay M, Nanda R. Dynamic smile analysis: Changes with age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 310.e1-10
• 13 van der Geld PA, Oosterveld P, van Waas MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Digital videographic measurement of tooth display and lip position in smiling and speech: Reliability and clinical application. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 301.e1-8
• 14 Sim RS, Smith JD, Chan AS. Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2000; 2: 113-20
• 15 Wang D, Qian G, Zhang M, Farkas LG. Differences in horizontal, neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North American Caucasian populations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1997; 21: 265-9
• 16 Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. New York: Thieme-Stratton; 1984
• 17 Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR, Beress A, Worley Jr CM. et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: Diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 239-53
• 18 Kadhom ZM, Al-Janabi MF. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms for a sample of Iraqi adults with class I normal occlusion in natural head position. J Bagh Coll Dent 2011; 23: 160-6
• 19 Uysal T, Yagci A, Basciftci FA, Sisman Y. Standards of soft tissue Arnett analysis for surgical planning in Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 449-56
• 20 Chhajed S, Kodumuru S, Singh G, Arun AV, Cholleti SK, Kothari S. Facial Soft Tissue Cephalometric Norms in a Central Indian Ethnic Population (Madhya Pradesh). J Indian Ortod Soc 2014; 48: 7-13
• 21 Sinojiya J, Aileni KR, Rachala MR, Pyata JR, Mallikarjun V, Reddy CM. Soft tissue esthetic norms for mahabubnagar population of southern India. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: 255-9
• 22 Upadhyay JS, Maheshwari S, Verma SK, Zahid SN. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis applied to regional Indian population. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013; 4: 159-66
• 23 Kalha AS, Latif A, Govardhan SN. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in a South Indian ethnic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 876-81
• 24 Chou JC, Thompson GA, Aggarval HA, Bosio JA, Irelan JP. Effect of occlusal vertical dimension on lip position at smile. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 533-9