The comparison of the perception of aesthetic that is formed on different profession groups by the factors that affects smile design

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting smile design by comparing the aesthetic perception created by different occupational groups. Material and Method: For this study, a form which has identifying questions as well as 42 modified photos that are got by making differences at different levels in factors which affects smile design such as digitally gummy smile, incisal embrassure, buccal corridor, visibility of incisors, midline, smile line, vermilion height of the lips, golden ration and diastema on photo of a woman and a man that has cheesing smile showing only mouth and teeth has prepared. Volunteer participants were asked to evaluate each photograph from an aesthetic point of view and to mark the most suitable option on the VAS and Likert scales. Data were analyzed with Shapiro Wilk's, Two-Way ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis, and Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison Test. Results: According to the results of our study, fine arts faculty graduates gave higher scores than other participants. Restorative dentistry specialists gave higher scores to the smile criteria most liked by all participants than the other participants, while they gave the lowest scores to the criteria that were least liked by all participants and gave answers that were compatible with the values accepted as ideal. According to the findings of this study; for both male and female models when the golden ratio, incisal embrasures and midline are not changed, the gingiva covers the central tooth by 1 mm, the lip vermilion height is increased by 2 mm, the incisal line of the maxillary incisors is parallel with the lower lip curvature, the visibility of the centrals 3 mm and when diastema is not formed; participants found the photos more aesthetic than others. The least liked photographs in all occupational groups are when the golden ratio is less than 60%, the width of the buccal corridor is 28%, the visibility of the centrals is 5 mm, and the gingival visibility is 3 mm; in addition to that it was observed that the photographs in which the heigh of the lip vermilion, the smile arc was reversed, the incisal embrasures were absent, decreased, increased, the midline was shifted 2.5 mm to the left and the diastema was formed were not liked by any professional group. Conclusion: As well as the expectations of the patient who applied to the physician for treatment, the physician's knowledge of the generally accepted criteria and her experience in the application are also important for a successful smile aesthetic. As a result of our study, which we found that profession and education are not always equally effective on aesthetic understanding, we think that the most accurate result will be reached in terms of diagnosis and treatment in aesthetic dentistry, when personal tastes are supported by literature knowledge. Keywords: Aesthetic dentistry, Smile, Smile design