Effect of Midline Discrepancy and Crown Width Disporportion on Esthetics

NCT06280027 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: MUDHF_BK1
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 180
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

In the web-based cross-sectional study 180 participants were included. Half of them (n = 90) were patients (laypeople) of the university clinic and the remaining half were restorative dentists and prosthodontists with similar levels of clinical experience (at least 3 years of academic training). A frontal view full-face portrait image of a 25-year-old female was selected as a model for the study, with a smile exhibiting good dental alignment, a quite good midline position, and tooth size symmetry. The original image was digitally modified by a single restorative instructor using Photoshop CC (Adobe, USA) software program. The modifications were divided into three parts. The first part was the generation of midline discrepancy at different levels. The midline was digitally moved to the right side of the patient 1 - 4 millimeters, gradually. The midline movement was performed together with the whole maxillary arch. The second part was the generation of individual crown width disproportions. Accordingly, the mesiodistal width of the left central, lateral, and canine was digitally decreased one by one, gradually, while the width of the symmetrical teeth on the right side was simultaneously increased. The third part was the generation of distributed crown width disproportions. Accordingly, the total mesiodistal width of the left central, lateral, and canine was equally decreased, gradually, while the total width of the symmetrical teeth on the right side was simultaneously increased. In total, 15 images were displayed in random order to the participants including the original image. An online survey was generated to quantitatively evaluate the level of esthetic perception. Subsequently, the participants were asked to evaluate the level of smile esthetics of the presented random images, without being informed about the digital manipulations of the images. The participants were even not informed about the original image. They were expected to answer the question "How esthetic do you consider this smile?" The evaluation of each image was performed via a Visual analog scale VAS, ranging from point 0 (extremely not esthetic) to point 100 (extremely esthetic).

Conditions

Esthetics, Dental

Keywords

Esthetics, Dental; Midline Discrepancy; Crown Width Disproportion

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• survey on midline discrepancy at different levels

  participants was asked to evaluate each image via a Visual analog scale VAS, ranging from point 0 (extremely not esthetic) to point 100 (extremely esthetic).

  10 minutes

• survey on individual crown width disproportions

  participants was asked to evaluate each image via a Visual analog scale VAS, ranging from point 0 (extremely not esthetic) to point 100 (extremely esthetic).

  10 minutes

• survey on distributed crown width disproportions

  participants was asked to evaluate each image via a Visual analog scale VAS, ranging from point 0 (extremely not esthetic) to point 100 (extremely esthetic).

  10 minutes

Study Arms (2)

group1

patients (laypeople) of the university clinic. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 and ≤70 years.

Other: survey

group2

restorative dentists and prosthodontists with similar levels of clinical experience (at least 3 years of academic training). The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 and ≤70 years.

Other: survey

Interventions

survey OTHER

An online survey was generated to quantitatively evaluate the level of esthetic perception.

group1; group2

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 70 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
• Sampling Method: Probability Sample

Study Population

Half of them (n = 90) were patients (laypeople) of the university clinic and the remaining half were restorative dentists and prosthodontists with similar levels of clinical experience (at least 3 years of academic training).

You may qualify if:

• \- For Group 1: Patients (laypeople) of the university clinic
• For Group 2:
• Restorative dentists and prosthodontists with similar levels of clinical experience (at least 3 years of academic training).

You may not qualify if:

• people with mental illness

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Marmara University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry

Istanbul, 34854, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Surveys and Questionnaires

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Data Collection; Epidemiologic Methods; Investigative Techniques; Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms; Quality of Health Care; Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation; Public Health; Environment and Public Health

Study Officials

• Bora Korkut, Dr.

  Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: COHORT
• Time Perspective: CROSS SECTIONAL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 20, 2024
• First Posted: February 28, 2024
• Study Start: June 5, 2023
• Primary Completion: June 12, 2023
• Study Completion: December 22, 2023
• Last Updated: February 28, 2024

Record last verified: 2024-02

Locations

TU (1)