Mitchell J. Lipp

Smile design and treatment planning with the help of a comprehensive esthetic evaluation form.

Even if a clinician possesses basic knowledge in esthetic dentistry and clinical skills, many cases presenting in modern dental practices simply cannot be restored to both the clinicians and the patients expectations without incorporating the perspectives and assistance of several dental disciplines. Besides listening carefully to chief complaints, clinicians must also be able to evaluate the patients physical, biologic, and esthetic needs. This article demonstrates the use of a smile evaluation form designed at New York University that assists in developing esthetic treatment plans that might incorporate any and all dental specialties in a simple and organized fashion.

Photographic and videographic assessment of the smile: Objective and subjective evaluations of posed and spontaneous smiles

INTRODUCTION Esthetic considerations play an increasingly important role in patient care, and clinicians need a methodology that includes imaging techniques to capture the dynamic nature of the smile. Photographs of the posed smile are routinely used to guide diagnosis and treatment, but there is no standardized and validated method for recording the dynamic smile. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether a posed smile is reproducible, (2) compare visual and verbal cues in eliciting a smile, and (3) compare the diagnostic value of videography and photography in evaluating a patients smile. METHODS The smiles of 22 subjects were simultaneously photographed and videotaped on 2 separate occasions. For objective comparisons, measurements of the smile were obtained from 8 × 10 color still photographs and selected digitized video images. A panel consisting of a layperson, an oral surgeon, an orthodontist, and a prosthodontist subjectively assessed the reproducibility of the smile, posed vs spontaneous smiles, and the diagnostic value of video vs still images. RESULTS Objective measurements showed that the posed smile can be reliably reproduced, whether captured by videography or still photography. However, subjectively, the panel members detected differences between the posed smiles taken on different days 80% of the time. The clinician panel members expressed a strong preference for videography over photography and for the spontaneous over the posed smiles. CONCLUSIONS This study emphasizes the need to continue to investigate and standardize the methods of eliciting and recording a smile of diagnostic quality.