Objective aestheticsFeatured Products Promotional Features
Posted by: The Probe 8th March 2020
It is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that has not prevented some of our greatest minds from attempting to discern an underlying universal principle of aesthetic perfection. The existence of an objective standard of aesthetics would be a boon for artists, designers and those concerned with the restoration and rehabilitation of the human form.
Since antiquity, there has been an understanding that proportions are related to whether we find something aesthetically pleasing or not. The golden ratio – sometimes referred to as the golden mean or the divine proportion – is often invoked as an intrinsically beautiful proportion, if not the most perfect proportion.
The Fibonacci sequence is the most well-known example of the golden ratio. Each number in the sequence is the sum of the two preceding it (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55…). When represented by squares on a grid, connecting the opposite corners of each square with an arc produces the golden spiral (φ). The Fibonacci sequence has often been observed in mathematics and nature, and is usually regarded as aesthetically pleasing. You have likely seen images of various celebrities with the Fibonacci spiral superimposed over their features, as an endorsement of their supposed perfection.
But is the Golden Ratio truly a mathematical underpinning to that which we find attractive, or is it merely a case of confirmation bias? Aesthetics are a subjective concern, and it is abundantly clear that people can hold radically different perceptions of what is and is not aesthetically pleasing. This divergence does appear to be a significant challenge to the claim of a universal truth, but what if we consider the problem from the opposite angle? While there are a multitude of opinions on what is beautiful, that which inspires revulsion or disgust seems to be much more readily agreed upon.
The stimuli that seem to provoke the most consistently negative responses are those that we associate with danger – disease, for example. It has been argued that this is a by-product of our evolution, that biological asymmetry can indicate an inability to thrive within one’s environment (due to the ravages of disease, parasites, hunger, toxins, etc.). It is believed that we consequently associate symmetry with health and for this reason, we are predisposed to consider it beautiful. While this theory is debated, it is widely recognised that humans (and animals) show a general preference for symmetry.
While the golden ratio frequently occurs in nature, it has been found to be quite uncommon with regard to dental proportions.,  Striving to achieve this ratio in an individual who does not correspond to these proportions may prove more aesthetically compromising than pleasing.
Experienced dentists are intimately familiar with the mouth. As such, they may be expected to have cultivated a particular sensitivity to deviations from what we might consider ideal. Studies report different thresholds for aesthetically pleasing results between dentists and laypeople. However, we should also consider that while non-dental professionals may be less consciously aware of aesthetic shortcomings, they might well perceive them on an unconscious level.
While a concern for aesthetics is sometimes considered to be a shallow pursuit, the reality is that people do consciously and unconsciously infer a wealth of information about those they see, making various judgements and classifications – and they do so within a fraction of a second simply from looking at their face. Whether these judgements are inaccurate or unfair, they can influence how the person is treated. Considerable evidence suggests that being considered physically attractive confers a real advantage in life. Those deemed more attractive are more likely to be hired, earn more money and see greater social and dating success. Among those who have lost teeth, a key motivator for pursuing dental implants as a restorative solution is the level of aesthetic and functional success that can be achieved with optimal patient comfort. It is not unheard of for patients to be more pleased with the appearance of their restorations than their original teeth. The difference that a positive aesthetic outcome could make to their lives is not to be underestimated.
This emphasises the importance of offering patients top-quality solutions for restoring damaged or missing teeth. TBR’s innovative Z1® implant system, for instance, features a highly resilient titanium body and a unique zirconia collar that is similar in colour to a natural tooth. This intelligent design prevents the grey titanium components of the implant becoming visible through the gingiva to ensure excellent aesthetics. Moreover, the Z1®’s zirconia collar helps protect the crestal bone and gingiva from iatrogenic inflammation. Protecting the bone-implant interface from infection is critical to osseointegration and the long-term success of an implant. Preventing infection and inflammation can increase the predictability and aesthetic results of treatment.
While the golden ratio may not be the key to aesthetic perfection that some may have hoped, proportion, symmetry and balance are principals that do underpin aesthetic success. An awareness of classic aesthetic concepts may help guide your restorations to higher levels of aesthetic success, even if the golden ratio itself is inappropriate. At the end of the day, patients and the general public do appear to respond favourably to proportionate orofacial features.
Mr. Matthieu Dupui, Biomedical engineer TBR
 Muhammad S., Shahid R., Siddiqui M. Tooth morphology and aesthetics while smiling in accordance to golden proportion. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2016; 10(1): 281-284. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303574346_Tooth_morphology_and_aesthetics_while_smiling_in_accordance_to_golden_proportion December 19, 2019.
 Persaud-Sharma D., O’Leary J. Fibonacci series, golden proportions, and the human biology. Austin Journal of Surgery. 2015; 2(5): 1066. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_facpub/27/ December 19, 2019.
 An S., Choi S., Chung Y., Jang T., Kang K. Comparing esthetic smile perceptions among laypersons with and without orthodontic treatment experience and dentists. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2014: 44(6): 294-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.6.294 December 19, 2019.
 Luo Q., Rossion B., Dzhelyova M. A robust implicit measure of facial attractiveness discrimination. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2019; 14(7): 737-746. https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/14/7/737/5520404 December 19, 2019.
 Wang Y., Zhang Y., Miron R. Health, maintenance, and recovery of soft tissues around implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2015; 18(3): 618-634. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cid.12343 December 19, 2019.