Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
From: The effect of orthodontic treatment on smile attractiveness: a systematic review
No | Study ID | Design; Setting; Country | Patient number (M/F) *; Type of malocclusion; Type of treatment (tx) | Age | Method for rating facial attractiveness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rated image | Raters (M/F) | Evaluation tool | |||||
1 | Almutairi et al., 2015 | Observational; University and private clinics; Saudi Arabia | 14 (0/14); Class II malocclusion/ Bimaxillary protrusion Tx1: 7; 4Ex + FA C: 7; No tx | Adults ≥ 16yrs | Smile photo (frontal and ¾) | 50 laypeople (25/25) 50 general dentists (25/25) 50 orthodontists (25/25) | 100-point scale |
2 | Havens et al., 2010 | Retrospective; University; USA | 48 (0/48); Not specified T0: 48 pre-tx T1: 48 post-tx | 13.0–17.6 yrs | Smile photo and Smiling face photo | 20 laypersons 20 orthodontists | 8-point scale |
3 | Hulsey et al., 1970 | Observational; Japan | 40 (20/20) Not specified Tx: 20 Tx C: 20 No Tx | 15–25 yrs | Smile photo | 20 laypersons (10/10) | 5-point scale |
4 | Janson et al., 2014 | Retrospective; University; Brazil | 66 (22/44); Class II division 1 Tx1: 23; 1Ex + FA Tx2: 23; 4Ex + FA Tx3: 20; 3Ex + FA | Group 1: 24.04 (4.97) Group 2: 25.40 (6.70) Group 3: 21.63 (5.27) | Smile photo | 46 laypeople (18/28) 70 orthodontists (47/23) | 10-point scale |
5 | Kumar et al., 2016 | Retrospective; University; India | 72 (N/A); Not specified T0: 72 pre-tx T1: 72 post-tx | Not specified | Smile photo | 6 laypeople (3/3) 6 general dentists (3/3) 6 orthodontists (3/3) | 10-point scale |
6 | Meyer et al., 2014 | Retrospective; Dental Hospital; Australia | 57 (24/33); Class II malocclusion Tx1: 30; 4Ex + FA Tx2: 27; Non-Ex + FA | Pre-treatment mean age: 14.87 (2.99) | Smiling face photo | 20 laypeople (10/10) 20 general dentists (10/10) 20 orthodontists (16/4) | 10-point-scale |
7 | Negreiros et al., 2020 | Retrospective; University; Brazil | 62 (31/31); Class I malocclusion Tx1: 20 self-ligating FA Tx2: 22 conventional FA + RME C: 20 conventional FA | Group 1: 19.4 yrs Group 2: 25.5 yrs Group 3: 21.8 yrs | Smile photo | 55 laypersons (18/37) 70 orthodontists (26/44) | 10-point scale |
8 | Reis et al., 2021 | Retrospective; Private clinics; Brazil | 30(13/17); Class III malocclusion Tx1:15; FA Tx2:15; OS + FA | Group1: Initial mean age: 21.26 (7.39) Final mean age: 24.52 (7.10) Group 2: Initial mean age: 23.12 (7.37) Final mean age: 25.82 (7.14) | Smile photo | 44 laypeople (10/34) 67 orthodontists (27/40) | 10-point scale |
9 | Rizzi et al. 2022 | Retrospective; Private clinics; Brazil | 16 (0/16) Gummy smile Tx1: 8 FA + MP Tx2: 22 OS + Le Fort I osteotomy | No specified | Smile photo | 56 orthodontists (22/34) 56 Maxillo-facial Surgeons (44/12) 56 laypersons (19/37) | 10-point scale |
10 | Thiruvenkatachari et al., 2017 | Retrospective; Dental Hospital; UK | 48 (16/32); Class II malocclusion Tx1: 14; 1CEx + FA Tx2: 10; 2CEx + FA C: 24; 2Ex + FA | Adolescents | Smile photo and Smiling face photo | 10 laypeople 10 general dentists 10 orthodontists | 10-point scale |