Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of comparing TFD scores for LAP images

From: The relationship between different levels of facial attractiveness and malocclusion perception: an eye tracking and survey study

 

Photographs

p

P0

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

Orthodontist

.54 ± .61A

1.22 ± 1.08AC

1.14 ± 1.03AB

1.65 ± 1.13AB

1.91 ± 1.38AC

1.78 ± 1.26A

1.82 ± 1.15A

1.66 ± 1.17AB

 < .001β

Dentist

.48 ± .87AB

1.61 ± 1.32A

1.51 ± 1.47A

2.05 ± 1.43A

2.29 ± 1.41A

1.80 ± 1.44A

1.92 ± 1.46A

2.06 ± 1.44A

 < .001β

Orthodontic Patient

.19 ± .35B

.80 ± 1.26B

.96 ± 1.19B

1.17 ± 1.51B

1.06 ± 1.44B

.95 ± 1.22B

1.07 ± 1.40B

1.16 ± 1.36B

 < .001β

Lay persons

.34 ± .74B

.94 ± 1.26BC

.86 ± 1.17B

1.17 ± 1.31B

1.27 ± 1.52BC

1.16 ± 1.42B

1.24 ± 1.55B

1.25 ± 1.58B

 < .001β

p

.001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 

Total average

.38 ± .68

1.14 ± 1.26

1.11 ± 1.24

1.50 ± 1.39

1.63 ± 1.50

1.42 ± 1.37

1.51 ± 1.43

1.53 ± 1.42

 
  1. In intergroup comparisons, different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference
  2. Intragroup comparisons: For Orthodontists: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 1 < 4, 5, 6; 2 < 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7. Dentists: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 1 < 4; 2 < 3, 4, 7. Orthodontic patients: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7. Lay persons: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7
  3. P0, Resting; P1, Ideal smile; P2, − 2 mm low smile line; P3, + 4 mm gingival smile; P4, + 6 mm gingival smile; P5, Maxillary anterior crowding; P6, Median diastema; P7, Polydiastema
  4. αKruskal–Wallis test, p value < 0.05
  5. βFriedman test, p value < 0.017