For years, a widely held assumption has existed among many people: women are more concerned about appearance, more critical of aesthetics, and more attentive to smiles. However, a study from the Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), revealed a surprising finding. When male and female students were asked to evaluate smile aesthetics based on gingival appearance, both groups provided nearly identical assessments.
There was no statistically significant difference at all.
Teeth, Gums, and Unwritten Standards of Beauty
In orthodontics, a smile is not merely an expression of emotion. It is a clinical object that can be analysed through measurable components, including buccal corridor width, smile arc, and the focus of this study: gingival display, or the amount of gum tissue visible when a person smiles broadly.
Generally, smiles are classified into four categories based on gingival display: very high smile line (where more than two millimetres of gingiva is exposed above the cementoenamel junction), high smile line, average smile line (where only gingival embrasures are visible), and low smile line (where gingival embrasures are not visible at all). Clinically, smiles with minimal gingival display are considered more aesthetically pleasing compared with a gummy smile, which reveals excessive gum tissue.
The question then arises: do men and women perceive these aesthetic standards in the same way?
The study, published in the Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) in December 2018, involved 36 students from the Faculty of Dentistry, UGM, from the 2014–2015 cohort. The participants were equally divided into 18 males and 18 females. The research team, consisting of Yessy Josephine Sijabat, C. Christnawati, and Dr. drg. Dyah Karunia, Sp.Ort., photographed the frontal smiles of each participant using a Canon EOS 700D camera positioned on a tripod 91 centimetres away from the subject’s face. The procedure followed the standards of the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry Photographic Accreditation Review.
Camera, Photographs, and Two Evaluation Sessions
The photographs were printed and presented alongside reference images representing different smile classifications. Each participant was asked to evaluate other people’s smiles, rather than their own, and select the classification they considered most appropriate on a scale of one to four. Two weeks later, the evaluation process was repeated to assess consistency.
The results were highly consistent. The statistical kappa test showed a high level of agreement between the first and second assessments, with a value of κ = 0.84. This indicated that participants’ perceptions of smiles remained stable over time. Meanwhile, the Mann–Whitney U test, which compared scores between male and female groups, produced a p-value of 0.902, far above the significance threshold of 0.05.
In other words, there was no difference in perception between the two groups.
Both male and female participants most frequently selected classification three (average smile line) as the most attractive smile type. Male participants selected it 44.44% of the time, while female participants selected it 41.67% of the time. Both groups agreed that an ideal smile is one that reveals only the gingival embrasures without excessive gum exposure.
Clinical Knowledge as a Perception Equalizer
This finding is interesting precisely because it contradicts common assumptions. Several previous studies have shown that women tend to be less satisfied with their smiles and pay greater attention to dental aesthetics compared with men. However, the UGM Faculty of Dentistry study demonstrated that other factors may neutralize gender differences.
“The major factor influencing research is the background knowledge of subjects as faculty of dentistry students who tend to pay more attention to dental aesthetics during their university studies, a fact obviously affecting their perception of facial aesthetics.”
The educational background in dentistry appears to function as an equalizer. Dental students, both male and female, have been exposed to the same clinical and theoretical knowledge regarding smile aesthetics. They learn about proportions, lip–gingival relationships, and aesthetic criteria from the same academic sources, leading their assessments to move in similar directions.
Another contributing factor was the narrow age range of participants, which was between 18 and 21 years old, as well as the fact that none of them had previously undergone orthodontic treatment. Experience with orthodontic treatment is known to significantly influence a person’s perception of aesthetics. By eliminating this variable, the study was able to isolate the influence of gender more effectively.
Of course, the study has limitations. The researchers acknowledged that the clinical crown length of participants’ incisors was not considered, and the evaluation focused only on gingival display without incorporating other components of smile aesthetics. A smile, after all, is a complex entity.
Nevertheless, one important message emerges from this research: when two people sit in the same classroom, study the same discipline, and observe the same images, gender differences in evaluating smile aesthetics may become irrelevant. The remaining question is whether the same phenomenon applies outside the classroom — among individuals who have never studied gingiva, dental proportions, or aesthetic principles.
Authors: Nanda Ayu, drg. Achmad Zam Zam Aghasy, M.Kes.
Photo: Pexels