Influence of education level and gender of dental students on perception of dental aesthetics

Abstract

Background: Fulfilling aesthetic norms is an imperative of modern society. Accordingly, aesthetics has found its important role in dental medicine. The aim was to study whether there is a difference in the perception of tooth shade change and anatomical variations of anterior maxillary teeth among dental students depending on the level of education, gender, and experience in assisting in a dental office.

Methods: The research was conducted among dental students via the Google Forms platform. Students evaluated the aesthetic acceptability of a smile on the unaltered, reference photograph (RP) and on the other 28 photographs in which the tooth shade (lighter and darker teeth), length (shortened central incisors, elongated, and beveled lateral incisors, elongated canines) and position (atypical and typical rotations and diastemas) of the upper maxillary teeth were altered by digital manipulation. The 1-10 assessment scale was used. Statistical analysis comprised one-way Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, X² tests, t-test, and 3-way MANOVA.

Results: In the research 208 students participated, 113 were preclinical students, 104 assisted in dental office and 175 were females. There were no significant effects of gender regarding length and position modifications (p > .05), while women were stricter in evaluation of lighter shade (p < .05). Clinical students were stricter in evaluating all manipulated photographs (MP) except those towards darker shade modifications, while assisting in a dental office or having a dentist in close family showed no significant effects (p > .05).

Conclusions: With a higher level of targeted academic education, dental students sharpen their ability to notice deviations from the aesthetic norms of a smile.

Keywords: Assisting; Gender; Knowledge; Photograph modifications; Smile aesthetics; Targeted education.

Fig. 1

Reference photograph

Fig. 2

Tooth shade changes: a. lighter tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 5100 K; b. lighter tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 4700 K; c. lighter tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 4300 K; d. darker tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 5900 K; e. darker tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 6300 K; f. darker tooth shade change of the right maxillary central incisor to 6700 K; g. lighter tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 5100 K; h. lighter tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 4700 K; i. lighter tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 4300 K; j. darker tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 5900 K; k. darker tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 6300 K; l. darker tooth shade change of both maxillary central incisors’ to 6700 K; m. darker tooth shade change of maxillary canines’ change to 5900 K; n. darker tooth shade change of maxillary canines’ change to 6300 K; o. darker tooth shade change of maxillary canines’ change to 6700 K; p. gingival color change to 4300 K

Fig. 3

Length changes: (a) Shortened maxillary central incisors; (b) Elongated maxillary lateral incisors to the length of central incisors; (c) Elongated incisal edges of maxillary lateral incisors to the length of canines; (d) Beveled maxillary lateral incisors’ distal edge; (e) Elongation of both canines beyond the length of maxillary second incisors

Fig. 4

Position changes: (a) central diastema; (b) multiple diastemas (c) typical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors + 10°; (d) typical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors + 20°; (e) typical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors + 30°; (f) atypical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors − 10°; (g) atypical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors − 20°; (h) atypical rotation of right maxillary lateral incisors − 30°