A Comparative Study on the Perception of Dental Esthetics of Laypersons and Dental Students

Iuliana Babiuc 1 , Ioana-Ioesefina Opincaru 1 , Mihaela Păuna 1 , Mihai Burlibașa 1 , Gabriela Tănase 1 , Liliana Burlibașa 2 , Irina Donciu 1 , Irina Adriana Beuran 1 , Ileana Ionescu 1 ,  and Camelia Ionescu 1
  • 1 “Carol Davila” University of Medicine of Pharmacy, , Bucharest
  • 2 University of Bucharest,


Introduction: Esthetic dentistry aims to create a harmonious smile that is well integrated with the facial architecture of the patient. A good understanding of the patient’s esthetic perception is important when designing a smile.

Materials and methods: 106 subjects, 51 patients 54 dental students took part in the study. Each subject was asked to evaluate 10 pictures showing frontal aspect of real cases. They were asked to rate the aesthetics of the clinical cases on a scale from 1 to 5. An open question was associated with each picture, where the subjects were asked to describe what they like and what they do not like about the picture.

Results and discussions: The overall mean esthetic rating of dental students was 2,68, while the laypersons’ rating was 2,98. Crowded teeth are more often criticized by patients, while dental students consider that slight crowding give a more natural appearance and individualize the teeth. The presence of diastema is observed by dental students even when it is discrete. The discrepancy between maxillary and mandibular dental midline is more easily observed by dental students. Discolored teeth lead to low aesthetic scores for both groups of subjects. Dental students gave lower esthetic scores to restorations with uniform colour, while laypersons appreciate white restorations. The limited height of papillae is considered unattractive by dental students, while laypersons hardly notice this aspect.

Conclusions: This study showed several differences in the aesthetic perception of dental students and laypersons. Students were generally more critical and gave lower scores than laypersons. They also observed and criticized more aspects regarding the smile.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Coachman C, Calamita M. Digital smile design: a tool for treatment planning and communication in esthetic dentistry. Quintessence Dental Technology; 2012:1-9.

  • 2. Silva BP, Jimenez-Castellanos E, Stanley K, Mahn E, Coachman C, Finkel S. Layperson’s perception of axial midline angulation in asymmetric faces. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(2):119-125.

  • 3. Silva BP, Tortora SC, 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(6):620-626.

  • 4. Silva BP, Mahn E, Stanley K, Coachman C. The facial flow concept: An organic orofacial analysis – the vertical component. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(2):189-194.

  • 5. Cooper G, Tredwin C, Cooper N, Petrie A, Gill D. The influence of maxillary central incisor height-to-width ratio on perceived smile aesthetics. BDJ. 2012;212(12):589-599.

  • 6. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza M. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007;132(6):748-753.

  • 7. Kokich V, Asuman Kiyak H, Shapiro P. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 1999;11(6):311-324.

  • 8. Yu Y, Alamri A, Francisco H, Cho S, Hirsch S. Interdental papilla length and the perception of aesthetics in asymmetric situations. International Journal of Dentistry. 2015;2015:1-5.

  • 9. Thomas M, Reddy R, Reddy BJ. Perception differences of altered dental esthetics by dental professionals and laypersons. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:242-247.

  • 10. Eftimie-Totu E, Cristache CM, Isildak S, Yildirim R, Burlibașa M, Nigde M, Burlibașa L. Preliminary studies on citotoxicity and genotoxicity assesment of the PMMA – TiO2 nanocompozites for stereolithographic complete dentures manufacturing. Revista de Chimie. 2018;65:1160-1165.

  • 11. Bodnar DC, Burlibașa L, Vârlan C, Marcov N, Georgescu SR, Marcov CE. Mercury, biocompatibility and its impact on environment. Metalurgia International. 2009;14:95-100.

  • 12. Burlibașa M, Tănase G, Muntianu L, Murgu AI, Teodorescu E, Malița C. Quality of life, a multidisciplinary concept with economic and social impacts in medical practice. Metalurgia International. 2010; Vol. XV, Spec. Issue No. 4, p. 88-90.

  • 13. Mocuța D, Popovici IA, Burlibașa L, Cristache G, Sfeatcu R, Bodnar T. Impact of the living conditions on population health. Metalurgia International. 2009;14:17-19.

  • 14. Ionescu CA, Popovici LR, Mocuța D, Malița C, Burlibașa M. The quality of human life from the perspective of sustainable development. Metalurgia International. 2009;14:41-43.


Journal + Issues