- Visibility 105 Views
- Downloads 74 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI doi: 10.18231/j.jco.9150.1759144358
-
CrossMark
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy and reproducibility of indigenously developed profile, smile and dento-gingival (PSD) Coding and grading system for facial esthetics amongst dental students and practitioners
- Author Details:
-
Shreya Shrivastava
-
Javed Sodawala
-
Piyush Khandelwal
-
Tanusha Mahobia
-
Jyoti Panjwani
Shreya Shrivastava
Javed Sodawala
Piyush Khandelwal
Tanusha Mahobia
Jyoti Panjwani
Background: Facial esthetics play a crucial role in personal and professional interactions, influencing self-confidence and social perception. Standardized assessment methods are crucial for consistency in clinical evaluations and treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of Profile, Smile and Dento-gingival (PSD) coding and grading system for facial esthetics amongst dental students and practitioners, examining the impact of experience level on aesthetic evaluation.
Materials and Methods: Three standard photographs (extra-oral frontal smile, profile, and intra-oral frontal) were digitally manipulated to create 10 sets, each highlighting different facial features. These sets were coded and graded using the PSD system. A total of 100 examiners were divided into four groups: BDS interns (BS), BDS practitioners (BP), MDS (Orthodontics) students (MS), and MDS (Orthodontics) practitioners (MP) to evaluate photographs. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test compared group scores, while intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s kappa statistics assessed intra- and inter-examiner reliability. The level of significance was set at P<0.05.
Results: The MP group achieved the highest overall score (114.88 ± 11.74), while BS scored the lowest (85.2 ± 13.20). MP showed the highest intra-examiner reliability (0.974) and BS the lowest (0.832). Inter-examiner reliability was strongest in MP (0.69) and weakest in BS (0.56).
Conclusion: MDS Orthodontics practitioners demonstrated the highest accuracy and reproducibility, likely due to their specialized training and experience. In contrast, BDS interns had the lowest accuracy, emphasizing the importance of expertise in facial esthetics evaluation.
References
- Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103(4):299-312. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L
[Google Scholar] - Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(4):284-317. DOI: 10.1043/0003-
[Google Scholar] 3219(1970)040<0284:ACOFE>2.0.CO;2 - Morley J, Eubank J. Macro-esthetic elements of smile design. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(1):39-45. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0023
[Google Scholar] - Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Orthodontic Diagnosis: The problem-oriented approach. In: Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013; p.149-66.s
- Jackson TH, Mitroff SR, Clark K, Proffit WR, Lee JY, Nguyen TT. Face symmetry assessment abilities: Clinical implications for diagnosing asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(5):663-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.06.020
[Google Scholar] - Jackson TH, Clark K, Mitroff SR. Enhanced facial symmetry assessment in orthodontists. Vis Cogn. 2013;21(7):838-52. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2013.832450
[Google Scholar] - Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod. 1993;63:175-82. DOI: 10.1043/0003-
[Google Scholar] 3219(1993)063<0175:EOHAVD>2.0.CO;2 - Burcal RG, Laskin DM, Sperry TP. Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;45(8):666-70. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(87)90304-1
[Google Scholar] - Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Al‐Mashraqi AA, Al‐Homoud M, Wafi S, Zakari A et al. Perception of facial, dental, and smile esthetics by dental students. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(5):415-26. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12405
[Google Scholar] - Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(5):517-22. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/21.5.51
[Google Scholar] - Omar H, Tai YT. Perception of smile esthetics among dental and nondental students. J Educ Ethics Dentistry. 2014;4(2):54-60.
- Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(2):208-213.
- Ker AJ, Chan R, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Esthetics and smile characteristics from the layperson's perspective: a computer- based survey study. J Am Dental Assoc. 2008;139(10):1318-27. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0043
[Google Scholar] - Al Taki A, Khalesi M, Shagmani M, Yahia I, Al Kaddah F. Perceptions of altered smile esthetics: a comparative evaluation in orthodontists, dentists, and laypersons. Int J Dent. 2016:7815274. DOI: 10.1155/2016/7815274
[Google Scholar] - Pisulkar SK, Agrawal R, Belkhode V, Nimonkar S, Borle A, Godbole SR. Perception of buccal corridor space on smile aesthetics among specialty dentist and layperson. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent. 2019;9(5):499-504. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_2_19
[Google Scholar] - Parekh SM, Fields HW, Beck M, Rosenstiel S. Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(4):557-63. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076
[Google Scholar][0557:AOVITS]2.0.CO;2 - Badran SA, Mustafa M. A comparison between laypeople and orthodontists in evaluating the effect of buccal corridor and smile arc on smile esthetics J World Fed Orthod. 2013;2(3):e123-6. Doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2013.05.005
[Google Scholar] - Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(2):141-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.01
[Google Scholar] - Rocha JM, Ramazini C, Rosing CK. Analysis of gingival margin esthetic clinical conditions by dental students. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2010;24(3):279–82
- Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists' and patients' concepts. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;100(3):345-52. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0093
[Google Scholar]