| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 17
| Issue : 4 | Page : 857-863 |
|
|
Comparative evaluation of various parameters of spontaneous smile captured by conventional photographic method, video clip method, and direct biometric method
Romilkumar Shah
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, K. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, SVDU, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Romilkumar Shah
5/A Kalrav, Panchratna Society, Gorwa Refinery Road, Vadodara - 390 016, Gujarat
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_150_21
|
|
|
Introduction: Facial and dental attractiveness can significantly impact one's life. As per Kiekens, smile esthetics contributed 25%–31% to facial attractiveness. Smile is one of the most effective means by which people convey their emotions. People have more positive acceptance and better behavior against attractive faces; this phenomenon is called “attractiveness halo”. The records needed for contemporary smile visualization and quantification can be static records (static photograph and/or lateral cephalogram), dynamic record (digital videography), and direct biometric/clinical measurements. Previous studies examining smile esthetics had used static photographs. Recently, a method of capturing and analyzing the smile using videography and computer software becomes need of an hour. Aim: Comparative evaluation of various parameters of spontaneous smile captured by conventional photography method (CPM), video clip method (VCM), and direct biometric method (DBM). Materials and Methods: The subjects were screened clinically and based on normal soft tissue profile angle in the profile photographs. Smile photographs of the subjects were obtained using conventional photography technique. VCM was used to capture spontaneous smiles of the subjects using the same camera. Finally, the parameters of the smile were directly measured on the subjects using Vernier calipers. Images were standardized and subjected to appropriate analyses to evaluate smile arc, buccal corridor, lower incisal display, upper gingival display, smile index, Morley's ratio, and smile line. Results: Measurements of smile arc, buccal corridor, lower incisal display, upper gingival display, smile index, Morley's ratio, and smile line on the photographs obtained from CPM showed statistically significant differences when compared to both VCM and DBM. Conclusion: As VCM is better able to capture and assess spontaneous smile when compared to CPM, it is the preferred method along with DBM as additional confirmation.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
