COMPARISON OF PERCEPTION FOR THE GINGIVAL DISPLAY BETWEEN DENTAL PROFESSIONALS AND NON-PROFESSIONALS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.13-1.752Keywords:
Gingival Display, Perception, Dental Professional, Non-ProfessionalAbstract
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to compare the mean perception scores of gingival display between dental professionals and non-professionals.
METHODOLOGY
A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at Rehmat Memorial Hospital, Abbottabad, involving 60 participants: 30 non-professionals and 30 dental professionals, aged 18 to 50 years. Using non-probability consecutive sampling, individuals with intellectual disabilities, color vision deficiency, or dental training were excluded. Standardized photographs of a female subject were digitally edited in Adobe Photoshop CS6 to simulate gingival display levels ranging from 0 to 5 mm. Evaluators viewed each image for 1 minute and rated it on a 10-point visual analog scale, with 00 indicating the least attractive and 10 the most attractive. Dental professionals included general dentists without orthodontic specialization, while non-professionals were patients with no prior orthodontic treatment or dental education. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare group differences. Stratification was done based on age, gender, and education level.
RESULTS
The mean age of dental professionals (33.73±5.15 years) was slightly higher than that of non-professionals (31.70±7.63 years), but not significantly (p=0.23). Gender distribution and educational backgrounds were comparable. Overall, non-professionals favored minimal gingival display, while dental professionals were more tolerant of increased gingival exposure.
CONCLUSION
Non-professionals and dental professionals differ significantly in their perception of gingival esthetics. These differences show the importance of patient-centered treatment planning and individualized aesthetic goals.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Cheng JH-C, Hsu Y-C, Lee TY-H, Li R-W. Factors affecting perception of laypeople and dental professionals toward different smile esthetics. J Dent Sci. 2022;18(2):739–46. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2022.06.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2022.11.030
Rotundo R, Nieri M, Lamberti E, Covani U, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Factors influencing the aesthetics of smile: an observational study on clinical assessment and patient’s perception. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48(11):1449–57. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13530 PMID: 34418124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13531
Fürhauser N, Rosen R, Fürhauser L, Fürhauser R. The perception of unilateral recessions in the maxillary esthetic zone: a survey among dentists and non-professionals. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024;37(6):883–9. doi:10.1111/jerd.13356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13392
Montinaro F, Nucci L, Chiarenza MC, d’Apuzzo F, Perillo L, Grassia V. The aesthetic perception of orthodontic specialists, general dentists and laypeople regarding different smile displays for a patient missing one upper lateral incisor and the other one peg-shaped. Front Dent Med. 2025;6:1532220. doi:10.3389/fdmed.2025.1532220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1532220
Jabbar A, Hussain G, Shereen S, Tariq J, Islam F, Mushtaq M. Perception of smile esthetics by patients reporting for orthodontic treatment. Int J Health Sci. 2022;6(S8):6851–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS8.14032
Lahcen O, Kenza K, Salma S, Zineb S, Farid EQ. An assessment of the maxillary canine torque’s aesthetics by prosthodontists, orthodontists, and laypeople. Open Access Libr J. 2024;11(2):1–9. doi:10.4236/oalib.1110481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111196
Al-Bitar Z, Attari N, Abu Arqub S, Al-Omiri M. Analyzing how personality factors influence the perception of smile aesthetics across diverse dental educational backgrounds and lay audiences. Prog Orthod. 2025;26(1):52. doi:10.1186/s40510-025-00674-3 PMID: 39876529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-025-00599-7
Pasukdee P, Cheng JH-C, Chen D-S. Smile preferences of orthodontists, general dentists, patients, and the general public in three-quarter and lateral views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159(4):e311–20. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.08.033 PMID: 33775438 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.09.012
Hata K, Arai K. Dimensional analyses of frontal posed smile attractiveness in Japanese female patients. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(1):127–34. doi:10.2319/011215-26.1 PMID: 25961883 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/091814-670.1
Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Costa ACS, Ferreira MC, Bramante FS, Fialho MPN, de Araújo Gurgel J. Comparison of gingival display in smile attractiveness among restorative dentists, orthodontists, prosthodontists, periodontists, and laypeople. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(2):314–21. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.017 PMID: 31272715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.023
Geevarghese A, Baskaradoss JK, Alsalem M, Aldahash A, Alfayez W, Alduhaimi T, et al. Perception of general dentists and laypersons towards altered smile aesthetics. J Orthod Sci. 2019;8:1–6. doi:10.4103/jos.JOS_90_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.JOS_103_18
Alomari SA, Alhaija ESA, AlWahadni AM, Al-Tawachi AK. Smile microesthetics as perceived by dental professionals and laypersons. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(1):101–9. doi:10.2319/120820-1007.1 PMID: 34460314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/020521-108.1
Najarzadegan F, Eslamipour F. Laypersons’ perception of smile esthetics from different backgrounds. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024;21(1):30. doi:10.4103/drj.drj_770_21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/drj.drj_770_21
Armalaite J, Jarutiene M, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A, Svalkauskiene V, Sidlauskas M, et al. Smile aesthetics as perceived by dental students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):10. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0478-8 PMID: 29357826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0673-5
Ahmad SM, Anwar NA, Hazrat Asad ur Rehman Hoti, Jawad Shah, Farheen Sajid, Anum Waseem, Aneela Baseer. Perception of Orthodontic Micro Esthetic Parameters and Their Social Acceptability Threshold: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Gandhara Med Dent Sci [Internet]. 2025 Sep. 30 [cited 2025 Dec. 24];12(4):48-52. http://jgmds.org.pk/index.php/JGMDS/article/view/748 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.12-4.748
Öz AA, Akdeniz BS, Canlı E, Çelik S. Smile attractiveness: differences among the perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons. Turk J Orthod. 2017;30(2):50–5. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.17021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.17021
Pithon MM, Santos AM, de Andrade ACDV, Santos EM, Couto FS, da Silva Coqueiro R. Perception of the esthetic impact of gingival smile on laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(4):448–54. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2012.04.027 PMID: 22920877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.04.027
Malheiros AS, Barboza JR, Pinheiro Neto SM, Dibai DB, Maia Filho EM, Pinzan-Vercelino CM, Ferreira MC, Tavarez RR. Laypersons’ esthetic perception of different dentogingival characteristics based on smile dynamics: cross‐sectional study. Int J Dent. 2024;2024:5561640. doi:10.1155/2024/5561640 PMID: 38733414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5561640
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hazrat Asad ur Rehman, Nabila Anwar, Syeda Multazam Ahmad , Dr Farheen sajid , Jawad Ullah Shah, Muhammad Umer Khan, Dr Aneela Baseer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
