Skip to main content

Table 5 Results of comparing TFD scores for HAP images

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

 

Photographs

p value

P0

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

Orthodontist

.54 ± .70A

1.54 ± 1.12A

1.36 ± 1.16A

1.50 ± 1.12AB

1.79 ± 1.33AC

1.76 ± 1.27AB

1.73 ± 1.18AB

1.74 ± 1.24AB

 < .001β

Dentist

.58 ± .80A

1.79 ± 1.42A

1.33 ± 1.17A

1.89 ± 1.31A

2.22 ± 1.48A

2.20 ± 1.42A

2.27 ± 1.51A

1.98 ± 1.42A

 < .001β

Orthodontic Patient

.30 ± .66A

.98 ± 1.46B

.66 ± .96B

1.12 ± 1.48B

1.34 ± 1.44BC

1.36 ± 1.51B

1.29 ± 1.51B

1.20 ± 1.50B

 < .001β

Lay persons

.27 ± .53A

.95 ± 1.45B

.88 ± 1.21AB

1.10 ± 1.34B

1.18 ± 1.35B

1.32 ± 1.52B

1.19 ± 1.27B

1.07 ± 1.39B

 < .001β

p value

.005α

 < .001α

 < .001α

.001α

.001α

.001α

 < .001α

 < .001α

 

Total average

.42 ± .68

1.31 ± 1.40

1.05 ± 1.15

1.40 ± 1.34

1.63 ± 1.44

1.66 ± 1.46

1.62 ± 1.43

1.49 ± 1.43

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