Skip to main content

Table 3 Scores for the attractiveness of the full-face images in increased facial vertical height and comparison of the scores between different raters

From: Does different vertical position of maxillary central incisors in women with different facial vertical height affect smile esthetics perception?

Smile variable

Orthodontists (1)

Prosthodontists (2)

Laypersons (3)

Difference p value

Mean ± SD

Median (%25–%75)

Mean ± SD

Median (%25–%75)

Mean ± SD

Median (%25–%75)

− 1 mm

42.30 ± 21.59

41.50 (27.50–52.50)

50.12 ± 26.23

45.50 (29.50–70)

56.57 ± 26.80

55 (40–75)

0.008* (1–3; p = 0.006)

− 0.5 mm

48.83 ± 19.16

47.50 (35.50–60.50)

55.40 ± 19.56

54.50 (43–67.50)

56.70 ± 24.33

55 (40–72.5)

0.095

0 mm

60.18 ± 17.46

60 (50–73)

57.28 ± 19.80

57.50 (40.50–70)

59.10 ± 23.39

52.50 (45–77.50)

0.733

 + 0.5 mm

64.18 ± 26.36

68.50 (50–79.50)

54.93 ± 25.12

52 (35–74.50)

59.82 ± 22.71

57.50 (40–77.50)

0.088

 + 1 mm

55.03 ± 22.23

51 (40.50–72)

54.88 ± 26.66

50 (32.50–80)

61.27 ± 25.98

60 (45–80)

0.088

  1. One-way Anova was used for comparison of the groups. Pairwise comparisons for the variables found to be significant were made using the Bonferroni post-hoc test
  2. Difference is significant at 0.05 level
  3. *Means significant difference
  4. 1 = Orthodontists, 2 = prosthodontists, 3 = laypersons
  5. 1–2 = Comparison of 1 and 2; 2–3 = comparison of 2 and 3; 1–3 = comparison of 1 and 3