Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 47
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 97-101

The effects of camera lenses and dental specialties on the perception of smile esthetics


1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Private Practice, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of ian Tissue Bank and Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences; Department of Dental Anatomy and Morphology, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Seyed Hadi Sajjadi
Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, PO Box 19585-175, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.173426

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether different camera lenses and dental specialties can affect the perception of smile esthetics. Methods: In the first phase of this study, 40 female smile photographs (taken from dental students) were evaluated by six orthodontists, three specialists in restorative dentistry, and three prosthodontists to select the most beautiful smiles. The 20 students with the best smile ranks were again photographed in standard conditions, but this time with two different lenses: Regular and then macro lenses. Each referee evaluated the beauty of the smiles on a visual analog scale. The referees were blinded of the type of lenses, and the images were all coded. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests (alpha = 0.05, alpha = 0.0167). Results: The lenses led to similar scores of beauty perception (Mann–Whitney P = 0.8). There was no difference between subjective beauty perception of specialties (Kruskal–Wallis P = 0.6). Two-way ANOVA indicated no significant role for lenses (P = 0.1750), specialties (P = 0.7677), or their interaction (P = 0.7852). Conclusion: The photographs taken by a regular lens and then digitally magnified can be as appealing as close-up photographs taken by a macro lens. Experts in different specialties (orthodontics, prosthodontics, and restorative dentistry) showed similar subjective judgments of smile beauty.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2544    
    Printed68    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded347    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal