Skip to main content

Table 7 Comparison of total scores of all participants for LAP, MAP and HAP photographs

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

 

Photographs

P0

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

LAP

3.15 ± 1.57A

4.64 ± 2.23A

3.94 ± 1.94A

3.46 ± 2.13A

3.23 ± 2.15A

2.43 ± 1.45A

2.71 ± 1.49A

2.53 ± 1.49A

MAP

4.64 ± 1.69B

6.42 ± 2.04B

5.69 ± 2.19B

4.76 ± 2.21B

3.64 ± 2.08A

2.97 ± 1.72B

3.28 ± 1.72B

3.25 ± 1.67B

HAP

6.44 ± 1.74C

6.71 ± 2.03B

6.97 ± 1.96C

4.94 ± 2.47B

3.40 ± 2.15A

3.28 ± 1.65B

3.34 ± 1.66B

3.39 ± 1.81B

p value

.001

.001

.001

.001

.149

.001

.001

.001

  1. Kruskal–Wallis test, p value < 0.05
  2. In intergroup comparisons, different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference
  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