Layperson and Dental Professional Perception When Evaluating Their Own Virtually 2D or 3D Simulated Esthetic Discrepancies Academic Article uri icon


  • PURPOSE: To analyze the perceptions of laypersons, dental students, and dentists regarding disparities of the maxillary dental midline and the occlusal plane (OP) when analyzing their own 2D or 3D clinical simulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 participants per group volunteered (N = 60). Intraoral and facial scans, and a photograph were obtained from each participant. Two simulation groups were created: 2D and 3D groups, which were subdivided into two subgroups. In the first subgroup, the OP was modified by 1-degree increments without changing the maxillary midline. In the second subgroup, the OP was modified by the same increments, but the maxillary midline was altered to match the OP inclination. Participants were asked to rate the simulations on a 1-to-6 scale and a question survey. Ordinal logistic regression (OR) was used to analyze the ratings. RESULTS: Tilt of the OP had the strongest negative effect on the ratings which was further amplified by the dental midline inclination (OR = 0.122). Midline modification alone did not affect the ratings (OR = 0.744). 3D simulations had a stronger positive effect on the ratings compared to 2D simulations. For dental students, the positive rating effect of 3D simulations was similar to dentists. For laypersons, the positive rating effect of 3D simulations compared to the 2D simulations decreased relative to dentists. The survey revealed that 45% of the dentists, 80% of the students, and 50% of the laypersons preferred the 3D simulation. CONCLUSIONS: The type of dimensional representation affected the esthetic perception of all participants. 3D simulations obtained higher esthetic ratings for the same esthetic discrepancy than 2D simulations. However, all participants' ratings decreased with increased tilt of the OP and were further decreased with the inclination of the dental midline.

author list (cited authors)

  • Revilla‐León, M., Ashby, M. T., Meyer, M. J., Umorin, M., Barrington, J. J., & Zandinejad, A.

citation count

  • 2

publication date

  • June 2020