|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Comprehensive studies evaluating the dimensions of anterior maxillary teeth in the Turkish population with respect to different esthetic parameters are lacking.The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate different proportions of teeth and compare them with current esthetic parameters such as the golden proportion, recurring esthetic dental proportion, and width-to-height ratio of central incisors and to evaluate whether the apparent contact dimension of maxillary anterior teeth follows the “50:40:30” rule.A total of 150 Turkish dental students (81 men and 69 women) aged between 18 and 24 years participated in the study. Standardized digital photographs of the mouth were made from an anterior view. The width and length of the maxillary central incisor, apparent width of the maxillary lateral and canine teeth, and distances between contact areas of the maxillary incisor teeth were measured with software. Differences between the measured proportions and the determined esthetic parameters were assessed with the 1-sample t test (α=.05).The width and length proportions of the maxillary incisor teeth in both sexes were significantly different than the golden and recurring esthetic dental proportions. The width-to-height ratio for the maxillary central incisor was different from 80%, which is considered optimal, and the difference among these parameters was statistically significant (P<.001). The apparent contact dimensions on the right and left sides were not statistically significantly different (P>.05). However, the proportions did not fit the 50:40:30 ratio that has been defined as the esthetic proportion, and the differences were statistically significant (P<.001).Proportions among maxillary anterior teeth were found to be significantly different from the golden proportion and recurring esthetic dental proportion in both sexes. The proportions of apparent contact dimension were significantly different than the 50:40:30 ratio in both sexes. The width-to-height ratio for maxillary central incisor was significantly different from 80% in both sexes.