April 1, 2015
by Daniel H. Ward, DDS
Dentistry and smile design is an art and a science. Subtle variations can make a smile look unique and better match the personality of the patient.1 Creating smiles that all look the same is undesirable and should match the size and body type of the patient.2 When you begin to study and analyze smiles deemed to be esthetic, a range of proportions emerge.3 The preferred proportions do not always coincide exactly with those routinely found in nature. Patients generally do not seek dental treatment to recreate the average smile: they seek an exceptional smile.
One of the first to analyze and portray body proportions was Leonardo da Vinci. His famous illustrations showed common anatomical proportions4 (Fig. 1). One of the first to report tooth proportions was House. He stated that the height of the central incisor should be 1/16 the length of the face from trichion to menton.5 The width of the central incisor should be 1/16 the inter-zygomatic width (Fig. 2). It has been advocated that the facial view width of the maxillary 6 anterior teeth should be in golden proportion to the inter-commissural width. Lombardi wrote about the repeated ratio whereby the facial view width of each maxillary tooth became smaller by a fixed percentage.6 Levin limited this repeated ratio to the golden proportion which is defined as 62%.7 (Fig. 3) Numerous tooth to tooth width proportions have been advocated.8,9 Most of these are not what is generally found in nature. In one study the average tooth to tooth width proportion observed in North American dental students was 66% for the lateral incisor/central incisor frontal widths and 84% for the canine/lateral incisor frontal widths10 (Fig. 4). Reported tooth proportions vary according to the geographic location of the smiles being studied.11-12
The width/length ratio of the central incisor has also been deemed to be important. The reported natural proportion is 84-87%13-14 (Fig. 5). According to one study the width/length ratio of the central incisor was the primary deciding factor for dentists surveyed deciding the preferred proportions of the smile and the preferred proportion was 75-78%.15
A method of relating the size of the teeth to body size, tooth length and inter-commissural width has been advocated. The Recurring Esthetic Dental (RED) Proportion states that the facial view tooth to tooth width of the maxillary anterior teeth remains constant as you move distally16 (Fig. 6). Each tooth becomes narrower by a fixed percentage which can be different with each patient. Research has shown that dentists prefer smiles with normal length teeth that have a 70% RED Proportion. Dentists prefer patients with tall teeth to show a 62% RED Proportion, which is the same as the Golden Proportion. Dentists prefer patients with short teeth to exhibit an 80% RED Proportion15 (Fig. 7) This occurs because the 78% w/l ratio of the central incisor is preferred. If a patient has tall teeth the central incisor needs to be wider to maintain the 78% w/l ratio. Less space is available for the remaining anterior teeth so the teeth have to become narrower. The reverse is true for short teeth.
Though not observed in nature, one study showed that the RED Proportion was preferred to naturally occurring proportions by a majority of dentists surveyed.17 Formulas have been developed that calculate the ideal widths of the maxillary anterior 6 teeth with different height teeth using the RED Proportion with a 78% w/l ratio of the maxillary central incisor.
Using Red Proportion Charts To Calculate Anterior Tooth Widths
Using the information learned from studies that dentists prefer smiles in which the w/l ratio of the central incisor to be 78%, you can first determine the relative overall height of the patient and the relative tooth height for the patient. The inter-canine width is divided by the corresponding divisor to determine the central incisor width. The resulting central incisor width is multiplied times the appropriate RED proportion to determine the width of the lateral incisor. The lateral incisor is multiplied times the same RED Proportion to determine the facial view width of the canine. Figure 8 demonstrates using Table 1 and the ICW to calculate the widths of the anterior teeth for a normal tooth height.
Simplified Method To Use Red Proportion Charts To Calculate Anterior Tooth Widths
Determining the sizes of the teeth can be simplified by using the inter-canine width and the existing or desired length of the central incisor. The Inter-canine width is divided by the desired central incisor length to produce a number which should be between 3.1 and 3.8. The chart is used to look up the corresponding divisors for the inter-canine width to determine the widths of the central incisor, lateral incisor and canine. Figure 9 demonstrates using Table 2 and the ICW/CIH to calculate the widths of the anterior teeth which was determined to have a normal tooth height.
Using Red Proportion Charts To Calculate Central Incisor Width And Height
Some dentists prefer to use the concepts of the RED Proportion to determine the ideal size of the central incisor and to make the lateral incisor 0.5 mm narrower and the canine 0.5mm wider than the calculated widths to coincide more with the naturally occurring width proportions. In this case you could measure the inter-canine width, determine the desired relative tooth height and calculate the width and length of the central incisor. Figure 10 demonstrates using Table 3 and ICW to determine the width and height of the central incisor.
A 17-year-old female presented to our office following orthodontic treatment for restorative treatment to replace her missing lateral incisors. Photographs were taken and frontal view measurements made and recorded (Fig. 11). It was determined that there was inadequate space to place dental implants in the lateral incisor area. The occlusal plane on the left side was higher than on the right side. The canine teeth were not angled properly. Occlusion was not consistent. It was determined that orthodontic retreatment was necessary to stabilize the occlusion and provide the desired esthetic outcome.
The inter-canine width was measured and determined to be 36.2mm. The central incisor height was measured as 9.4mm. Dividing these two numbers and looking up the quotient which was 3.8 it was determined that the 80% RED Proportion would be appropriate (Fig. 12). An 80% template was placed over the photo to observe the desired position of the teeth (Fig. 13).
Orthodontic appliances were placed and the progress was monitored in our office. Measurements were made to determine if the teeth were in the proper position (Fig. 14). Once the teeth were deemed to be in the proper position the appliances were removed and removable retainers fabricated. The patient was then referred to the periodontist who placed implants in the area of the missing lateral incisors. The implants were allowed to integrate, were uncovered and healing screws were placed (Fig. 15).
After stabilization, the desired size of the central incisors was calculated using Table 3. The ICW was 36.2 and the very short tooth height used. The ICW was divided by 4.8 to determine the width of the central incisor would be 7.5. The ICW was divided by 3.8 to determine the tooth length of the central incisor to be 9.5 (Fig. 16). The bicuspids and canines were prepared for porcelain laminate veneers, the central incisors for crowns and
the lateral incisors implant crowns. Photographs of the prepared teeth and the stump shade were sent to the laboratory (Fig. 17). Impressions were made and provisional restorations placed. The patient returned in three weeks and the prostheses were tried in and seated. The patient returned in several weeks for evaluation and minor adjustments (Fig. 18). She was very pleased with her new smile and happy that we had coordinated the orthodontic treatment.
Proportional smile design is a convenient tool to calculate the sizes of the anterior teeth which complement the face and body. Proportional smile design is not designed to detract from the creativity of the dentist and the laboratory, but to enhance their ability to create smiles that better match the unique characteristics of the patient. With careful smile analysis, smile design, thorough planning, and attention to detail, predictable results can be achieved.OH
Dr. Ward is in private practice in Columbus, Ohio. He is a Diplomat of the American Board of Aesthetic Dentistry, a Fellow of the American Society for Dental Aesthetics, Fellow in the Academy of General Dentistry and Fellow in the American and International College of Dentists. He has lectured internationally and authored numerous articles in the field of proportional smile design. Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
Oral Health welcomes this original article.
1. Frush JP, Fisher RD. How dentogenic restorations interpret the Personality factor. J Prosthet Dent 1956;6:441-449.
2. Gürel G. The Science and Art of Porcelain Laminate Veneers. Berlin. Quintessence, 2003:61.
3. Witt M, Flores C. Laypeople’s preferences regarding frontal dentofacial esthetics. JADA;142:635-645.
4. Huntley H.E. The Divine Proportion: a study in mathematical beauty. New York. Dover Publications Inc., 1970.
5. House MM, Loop JL: Form and Color Harmony in the Dental Art. Whittier, California, Monograph, 1937, 3-33.
6. Lombardi RE. The principles of visual perception and their clinical application to denture esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1973:29:358-382.
7. Levin EI. Dental esthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40:244-252.
8. Méthot A. M Proportions: The new Golden Rules in dentistry. Spectrum 2006;Special AACD issue 22-28.
9. Snow SR, Esthetic smile analysis of anterior tooth width:the golden percentage. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:177-184.
10. Preston JD. The golden proportion revisited. J Esthetic Dent 1993;5:247-251.
11. Forster A, Velez R, Antal M, Nagy K. Width ratios in the anterior maxillary region in a Hungarian population: addition to the golden proportion debate. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:211-215.
12. Chander NG, Kumar VV, Rangarajan V. Golden proportion assessment between maxillary and mandibular teeth on Indian population. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012 May;4(2):72-75.
13. Sterrett JD, Oliver T, Robinson F, et al. Width/length ratios of normal clinical crowns of the maxillary anterior dentition in man. J Clin Periodontol 1999;26:153-157.
14. Gillen RJ, Schwartz RS, Hilton TJ, Evans DB. An analysis of selected normative tooth proportions. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:410-417.
15. Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG. Dentists’ Preferences of Anterior Tooth Proportion-A Web-based Study. J Prosthodont 2000;9:123-136.
16. Ward DH. Proportional smile design using the RED proportion. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:143-154.
17. Ward DH. A Study of Dentists’ Preferred Maxillary Anterior Tooth Width Proportions: Comparing the Recurring Esthetic Dental Proportion to Other Mathematical and Naturally Occurring Proportions. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:323-336.