Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of comparing TFD scores for MAP 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

.35 ± .48A

1.44 ± 1.07A

1.50 ± 1.20A

1.83 ± 1.18A

1.73 ± 1.15AB

2.03 ± 1.29AB

1.60 ± 1.15AB

1.63 ± 1.18AB

 < .001β

Dentist

.31 ± .51AB

1.71 ± 1.43A

1.74 ± 1.39A

2.26 ± 1.51A

2.28 ± 1.38A

2.27 ± 1.55A

2.17 ± 1.52A

1.82 ± 1.40A

 < .001β

Orthodontic Patient

.13 ± .27B

1.15 ± 1.44AB

.92 ± 1.43B

.93 ± 1.35B

1.51 ± 1.57AB

1.23 ± 1.51B

1.24 ± 1.49B

1.18 ± 1.32AB

 < .001β

Lay persons

.18 ± .35AB

.87 ± 1.21B

.94 ± 1.17B

1.40 ± 1.58AB

1.43 ± 1.62B

1.30 ± 1.57B

1.17 ± 1.46B

1.13 ± 1.33B

 < .001β

p

.021α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

.003α

 < .001α

 < .001α

.007α

 

Total average

.24 ± .42

1.29 ± 1.32

1.27 ± 1.33

1.60 ± 1.48

1.73 ± 1.46

1.70 ± 1.53

1.54 ± 1.45

1.44 ± 1.33

 
  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 < 5; 2 < 5. Dentists: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 1 < 3, 4, 5 ve 6; 2 < 3, 4, 5 ve 6. Orthodontic patients: 0 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ve 7; 2 < 4; 3 < 4. 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