Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of comparing VAS 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

2.62 ± 1.44A

3.80 ± 1.70A

3.04 ± 1.47A

2.56 ± 1.31A

2.24 ± 1.32A

2.22 ± 1.45A

2.44 ± 1.33A

2.18 ± 1.30A

 < .001β

Dentist

3.08 ± 1.35AB

4.46 ± 1.93AB

3.90 ± 1.71AB

3.00 ± 1.63AB

2.86 ± 1.65AB

2.52 ± 1.30A

2.72 ± 1.51A

2.62 ± 1.26A

 < .001β

Orthodontic patient

3.42 ± 1.62B

5.06 ± 2.56AB

4.18 ± 2.14B

4.10 ± 2.44B

3.80 ± 2.42B

2.38 ± 1.52A

2.74 ± 1.47A

2.54 ± 1.45A

 < .001β

Lay persons

3.48 ± 1.76B

5.26 ± 2.41B

4.64 ± 2.07B

4.20 ± 2.47B

4.02 ± 2.55B

2.60 ± 1.54A

2.96 ± 1.65A

2.80 ± 1.86A

 < .001β

p

.018α

.007α

 < .001α

.001α

 < .001α

.389α

.496α

.243α

 

Total average

3.15 ± 1.57

4.64 ± 2.23

3.94 ± 1.94

3.46 ± 2.13

3.23 ± 2.15

2.43 ± 1.45

2.71 ± 1.49

2.53 ± 1.49

 
  1. In intergroup comparisons, different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference
  2. Intragroup comparisons: For Orthodontists: 0 < 1; 1 > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 2 > 4, 5, 6, 7. Dentists: 0 < 1, 2; 1 > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 2 > 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Orthodontic patients: 0 < 1, 2; 1 > 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7. 2 > 5, 6, 7; 3 > 5, 6, 7. 4 > 5, 6, 7. Lay persons: 0 < 1, 2; 0 > 5, 7. 1 > 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 2 > 5, 6, 7; 3 > 5, 6, 7; 4 > 5, 6, 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