Objective assessment of the influence of malocclusion and orthodontic devices on facial and smile esthetics in laypeople via eye-tracking technology: A systematic review of clinical studies
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2025
Objective assessment of the influence of malocclusion and orthodontic devices on facial and smile esthetics in laypeople via eye-tracking technology: A systematic review of clinical studies
Understanding patients’ psychological, anatomical, and functional needs helps clinicians identify issues affecting smile aesthetics, improving orthodontic outcomes and quality of life.
Objectives
This review examined laypeople's esthetic perceptions of malocclusion and orthodontic appliances via eye-tracking technology, considering gender and professional background influences.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, and ProQuest. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Data on eye fixation metrics and subjective ratings were descriptively synthesized.
Results
Among 7009 studies, 27 met inclusion criteria (11 high, 10 moderate, and 6 low RoB) with variable methodologies. Ethnic and cultural factors were rarely considered. The eyes received the most attention in facial aesthetics. However, severe malocclusion and orthodontic appliances redirected gaze to the mouth, while attractive facial features mitigated this effect. Laypeople were more tolerant of malocclusion than dental professionals, who were more sensitive to malocclusion deviations. Facial esthetic perception revealed gender-related differences, where females focusing more on the eyes and males on the mouth and nose.
Conclusions
Malocclusion and orthodontic appliances affect esthetic perception by altering gaze patterns. Integrating eye-tracking technology into orthodontic practice can improve patient satisfaction by aligning treatments with esthetic expectations.
El AsmarRAklRGhoubrilJ,et al.Evaluation of the ideal position of the maxillary incisor relative to upper lip thickness. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2020; 158: 264–272.
2.
KokichVOAsuman KiyakHShapiroPA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent1999; 11: 311–324.
3.
BeyerJWLindauerSJ. Evaluation of dental midline position. Semin Orthod1998; 4: 146–152.
4.
FerreiraJBda SilvaLECaetanoMdO, et al.Perception of midline deviations in smile esthetics by laypersons. Dental Press J Orthod2016; 21: 51–57.
5.
MachadoAWMoonWGandiniLG. Influence of maxillary incisor edge asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics among orthodontists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2013; 143: 658–664.
6.
FigueiredoBARibeiroJBPMachadoAW. Does the presence of unilateral gingival recession on maxillary canines influence smile esthetics?Dental Press J Orthod2020; 25: 56–63.
7.
AcarYBAbuhanEBoyacıyanR,et al.Influence of facial type on attractiveness of vertical canine position from the perspective of orthodontists and laypeople. Angle Orthod2022; 92: 233–239.
8.
ShawWCReesGDaweM,et al.The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod1985; 87: 21–26.
9.
KerosuoHHausenHLaineT,et al.The influence of incisal malocclusion on the social attractiveness of young adults in Finland. Eur J Orthod1995; 17: 505–512.
10.
BadranSA. The effect of malocclusion and self-perceived aesthetics on the self-esteem of a sample of Jordanian adolescents. Eur J Orthod2010; 32: 638–644.
11.
AckermanMBAckermanJL. Smile analysis and design in the digital era. J Clin Orthod2002; 36: 221–236.
12.
Abu AlhaijaESJAl-ShamsiNOAl-KhateebS. Perceptions of Jordanian laypersons and dental professionals to altered smile aesthetics. Eur J Orthod2011; 33: 450–456.
13.
AtiyehBEmsiehSHakimC, et al.A Narrative Review of Eye-Tracking (ET) Assessment of Esthetic Endpoints in Plastic, Reconstructive, and Craniofacial Surgery. J Craniofac Surg2023; 34: 2137–2141. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000009578
14.
EwingLRhodesGPellicanoE. Have you got the look? Gaze direction affects judgements of facial attractiveness. Vis Cogn2010; 18: 321–330.
15.
BeesleyTPearsonDLe PelleyM. Eye tracking as a tool for examining cognitive processes. In: Biophysical measurement in experimental social science research. London: Academic Press (an imprint of Elsevier Science & Technology), 2019, pp.1–30.
16.
SkaramagkasVGiannakakisGKtistakisE, et al.Review of eye tracking metrics involved in emotional and cognitive processes. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng2023; 16: 260–277.
17.
HartmannMFischerMH. Exploring the numerical mind by eye-tracking: a special issue. Psychol Res2016; 80: 325–333.
18.
BuenoAPASatoJRHornbergerM. Eye tracking – the overlooked method to measure cognition in neurodegeneration?Neuropsychologia2019; 133: 107191.
19.
CristinaSCamilleriKP. Unobtrusive and pervasive video-based eye-gaze tracking. Image Vis Comput2018; 74: 21–40.
20.
WangXCaiBCaoY, et al.Objective method for evaluating orthodontic treatment from the lay perspective: an eye-tracking study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2016; 150: 601–610.
21.
RichardsMRFieldsHWBeckFM, et al.Contribution of malocclusion and female facial attractiveness to smile esthetics evaluated by eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2015; 147: 472–482.
22.
JohnsonEKFieldsHWJBeckFM, et al.Role of facial attractiveness in patients with slight-to-borderline treatment need according to the aesthetic component of the Index of orthodontic treatment need as judged by eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2017; 151: 297–310.
23.
GuimarãesLKBuenoPHOliveiraPdS, et al.The perception of asymmetries in occlusal plane in the frontal view among laypeople: an eye-tracking study. J Clin DIAGNOSTIC Res2020; 14: 29–32. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2020/43190.13533
24.
de OliveiraWLSagaAYIgnácioSA, et al.Comparative study between different groups of esthetic component of the Index of orthodontic treatment need and eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2019; 156: 67–74.
25.
FörschMKrullLHechtnerM, et al.Perception of esthetic orthodontic appliances: an eye tracking and cross-sectional study. Angle Orthod2020; 90: 109–117.
26.
ShawWC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod1981; 3: 151–162.
27.
NormandoD. Esthetics and human perception. Dental Press J Orthod2012; 17: –1.
28.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J.2021; 372 :n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
29.
HagstromCKendallSCunninghamH. Googling for grey: using google and Duckduckgo to find grey literature. In: Abstracts of the 23rd cochrane colloquium. Cochrane database systematic reviews supplements. Vienna: Cochrane Colloquium, 2015, pp.1–327.
30.
MoolaSMunnZTufanaruC, et al.Checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. In: AromatarisEMunnZ (eds) Joanna Briggs institute reviewer’s manual. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017, pp.6.
31.
BarkerTHStoneJCSearsK, et al.Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evid Synth2023; 21: 478–493.
32.
TanakaOMRibeiroVGGasparelloGG, et al.Smile Arc Esthetics in Middle-Aged Man from the Layperson’s Perspective Via Eye-Tracking. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr2022; 22: e210138. https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2022.026
33.
WolanskiRGasparelloGMiyoshiC, et al.Evaluation of the perception of smile esthetics, in frontal view, with mandibular laterognatism, through the eye-tracking technique. J Orthod Sci2020; 9: 7.
34.
GasparelloGGJúniorSLMHartmannGC, et al.The influence of malocclusion on social aspects in adults: study via eye tracking technology and questionnaire. Prog Orthod2022; 23: 4.
35.
MiyoshiCSRachedRNMeiraTM, et al.The eye-tracking study of the impact of the gingival margin height of maxillary lateral incisors. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2020; 40: 261–270.
36.
Al-LahhamASouzaPHCMiyoshiCS, et al.An eye-tracking and visual analogue scale attractiveness evaluation of black space between the maxillary central incisors. Dental Press J Orthod2021; 26: 1–27.
37.
ZorluMCamcıH. The relationship between different levels of facial attractiveness and malocclusion perception: an eye tracking and survey study. Prog Orthod2023; 24: 29.
38.
AşikSKökH. Perception of dental midline deviation and smile attractiveness by eye-tracking and aesthetic ratings. Australas Orthod J2021; 37: 187–196.
39.
CelikdelenMBicakciAA. Factors affecting smile attractiveness: an eye tracking study. J Res Med Dent Sci2020; 8: 56–70.
40.
PutrinoAMarinelliERasoM, et al.Clear Aligners and Smart Eye Tracking Technology as a New Communication Strategy between Ethical and Legal Issues. Life2023; 13: 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020297
41.
MatsumuraYAraiK. Influence of orthodontic appliances on visual attention to smiling faces by eye-tracking evaluation. Orthod Waves2019; 78: 135–142.
42.
FujiiCOnumaTNakamuraF, et al.Influence of dental education on eye gaze distribution when observing facial profiles with varying degrees of lip protrusion. J Dent Educ2021; 85: 476–482.
43.
ChaptiniAGhoubrilJMoussallemM,et al.Perception thresholds of dental and gingival asymmetries by orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople when observing close-up smile images using eye tracking technology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2024; 167: 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.09.007
44.
HuangPSCaiBZhouC, et al.Contribution of the mandible position to the facial profile perception of a female facial profile: an eye-tracking study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2019; 156: 641–652.
45.
KimSHHwangSHongY-JJ, et al.Visual attention during the evaluation of facial attractiveness is influenced by facial angles and smile. Angle Orthod2018; 88: 329–337.
46.
ThaiJKAraujoEMcCrayJ, et al.Esthetic perception of clear aligner therapy attachments using eye-tracking technology. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2020; 158: 400–409.
47.
DindaroğluFDoğanSYalçınA, et al.How are faces with increased and decreased lower facial height perceived visually?Int J Comput Dent2017; 20: 393–407.
48.
BarkMJGasparelloGGHartmannGC, et al.Evaluation of the impact of orthodontists’ smile with malocclusions on social media and professional credibility. Clin Oral Investig2024; 28: 74.
49.
HickmanLFirestoneARBeckM, et al.Eye fixations when viewing faces. J Am Dent Assoc2010; 141: 40–46.
50.
BakerRSFieldsHWBeckFM, et al.Objective assessment of the contribution of dental esthetics and facial attractiveness in men via eye tracking. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2018; 153: 523–533.
51.
MeiraTMGasparelloGGAnteloOM, et al.The visual perception of aligned and crowded maxillary lateral incisors when smiling via eye tracking. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects2022; 16: 234–237.
52.
TanakaOVitralRWFMiyoshiCS, et al.Laypeople’s and dental students’ perceptions of a diastema between central and lateral incisors: evaluation using scanpaths and colour-coded maps. Orthod Craniofacial Res2020; 23: 493–500.
53.
BarkMJGasparelloGGHartmannGC, et al.Evaluation of the impact of orthodontists’ smile with malocclusions on social media and professional credibility. Clin Oral Investig2024; 28: 74.
54.
ParriniSRossiniGCastroflorioT, et al.Laypeople’s perceptions of frontal smile esthetics: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2016; 150: 740–750.
55.
JanikSWWellensARGoldbergML,et al.Eyes as the center of focus in the visual examination of human faces. Percept Mot Skills1978; 47: 857–858.
56.
HickmanLFirestoneARBeckM, et al.Eye fixations when viewing faces. J Am Dent Assoc2010; 141: 40–46.
57.
UnemaPJAPannaschSJoosM,et al.Time course of information processing during scene perception: the relationship between saccade amplitude and fixation duration. Vis Cogn2005; 12: 473–494.
58.
SütterlinBBrunnerTAOpwisK. Eye-tracking the cancellation and focus model for preference judgments. J Exp Soc Psychol2008; 44: 904–911.
59.
ToleNLajnertVKovacevic PavicicD,et al.Gender, age, and psychosocial context of the perception of facial esthetics. J Esthet Restor Dent2014; 26: 119–130.
60.
TorulDOmezliMM. The influence of education and gender on the esthetic perception of facial profile. Int J Esthet Dent2022; 17: 88–99.
61.
FalkensammerFLoeschAKrallC, et al.The impact of education on the perception of facial profile aesthetics and treatment need. Aesthetic Plast Surg2014; 38: 620–631.
62.
KokichVOKokichVGKiyakHA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2006; 130: 141–151.
63.
MontinaroFNucciLChiarenzaMC, et al.The aesthetic perception of orthodontic specialists, general dentists and laypeople regarding different smile displays for a patient missing one upper lateral incisor and the other one peg-shaped. Front Dent Med2025; 6: 1532220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1532220
64.
SalehiPAzadehNBeigiN,et al.Influence of age on perception of best esthetical profile. J Dent (Shiraz, Iran)2019; 20: 16–23.
65.
JacobsenT. Beauty and the brain: culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. J Anat2010; 216: 184–191.
66.
HesslingerVMCarbonC-CHechtH. Social Factors in Aesthetics: Social Conformity Pressure and a Sense of Being Watched Affect Aesthetic Judgments. Iperception2017; 8: 2041669517736322. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517736322
67.
YangTSilveiraSFormuliA, et al.Aesthetic Experiences Across Cultures: Neural Correlates When Viewing Traditional Eastern or Western Landscape Paintings. Front Psychol2019; 10: 798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00798
68.
HillsPJPakeJM. Eye-tracking the own-race bias in face recognition: revealing the perceptual and socio-cognitive mechanisms. Cognition2013; 129: 586–597.
69.
MaXFuMZhangX, et al.Own Race Eye-Gaze Bias for All Emotional Faces but Accuracy Bias Only for Sad Expressions. Front Neurosci2022; 16: 852484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.852484
70.
SharmaNRosenstielSFFieldsHW,et al.Smile characterization by U. S. White, U. S. Asian Indian, and Indian populations. J Prosthet Dent2012; 107: 327–335.
StelterMRommelMDegnerJ. (Eye-) tracking the other-race effect: comparison of eye movements during encoding and recognition of ingroup faces with proximal and distant outgroup faces. Soc Cogn2021; 39: 366–395.
73.
GoldingerSDHeYPapeshMH. Deficits in cross-race face learning: insights from eye movements and pupillometry. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn2009; 35: 1105–1122.
74.
WuEXWLaengBMagnussenS. Through the eyes of the own-race bias: eye-tracking and pupillometry during face recognition. Soc Neurosci2012; 7: 202–216.
75.
WongHKKeebleDRTStephenID. Do they ‘look’ different(ly)? dynamic face recognition in Malaysians: Chinese, malays and Indians compared. Br J Psychol2023; 114: 134–149.
76.
MaJHuangJLiY. The other-ethnicity effect in facial recognition of Tibetan and han individuals: evidence from behavioural and eye-movement data. Int J Psychol2024; 59: 762–771.
77.
NongthombamHKumarMGoyalM, et al.Regional influence on the aesthetic preference of different Mongolian profiles: a comparative study of assessors from northeast and mainland India. Int Orthod2023; 21: 100730.
78.
JuckerJ-LThornborrowTBatresC, et al.Cultural predictors of facial ethnicity preference in the miskitu and mestizos of rural Nicaragua. J Cross Cult Psychol2024; 55: 292–307.
79.
LuYYangJXiaoK, et al.Investigation of effect of skin tone to facial attractiveness. Color Imaging Conf2020; 28: 25–29.
80.
KempaJAlfertshoferMChuaD, et al.Influence of ethnicity on aesthetic preferences for lip characteristics in Caucasian male and female faces. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg2024; 95: 181–189.
81.
SadrhaghighiAZarghamiASadrhaghighiS, et al.Esthetic preferences of laypersons of different cultures and races with regard to smile attractiveness. Indian J Dent Res2017; 28: 56.
82.
TarantiliVVHalazonetisDJSpyropoulosMN. The spontaneous smile in dynamic motion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2005; 128: 8–15.
83.
CosendeyVLDrummondSCapelli JuniorJ. Capture, analysis and measurement of images of speech and smile dynamics. Dental Press J Orthod2012; 17: 151–156.
LiangL-ZHuW-JZhangY-L,et al.Analysis of dynamic smile and upper lip curvature in young Chinese. Int J Oral Sci2013; 5: 49–53.
86.
ChavesPRBKaramAMMachadoAW. Does the presence of maxillary midline diastema influence the perception of dentofacial esthetics in video analysis?Angle Orthod2021; 91: 54–60.
87.
LinAI-CBraunTMcNamaraJA,et al.Esthetic evaluation of dynamic smiles with attention to facial muscle activity. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2013; 143: 819–827.
88.
LehnerGMGockelnLNaberBM, et al.Differences in the annotation between facial images and videos for training an artificial intelligence for skin type determination. Ski Res Technol2024; 30: e13632. https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.13632
89.
KalayciSEkenelHKGunesH. Automatic analysis of facial attractiveness from video. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). Paris: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2014. pp.4191–4195.
90.
HadidA. Analyzing Facial Behavioral Features from Videos. pp 52–61. 2011.
91.
MahnESampaioCSPereira da SilvaB, et al.Comparing the use of static versus dynamic images to evaluate a smile. J Prosthet Dent2020; 123: 739–746.
92.
CoachmanCCalamitaMSesmaN. Dynamic documentation of the smile and the 2D/3D digital smile design process. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2017; 37: 183–193.
93.
SilvestriFOdishoNKumarA,et al.Examining gaze behavior in undergraduate students and educators during the evaluation of tooth preparation: an eye-tracking study. BMC Med Educ2024; 24: 1030.
94.
RodgerHSokhnNLaoJ, et al.Developmental eye movement strategies for decoding facial expressions of emotion. J Exp Child Psychol2023; 229: 105622.
95.
HanleyMKhairatMTaylorK, et al.Classroom displays—attraction or distraction? Evidence of impact on attention and learning from children with and without autism. Dev Psychol2017; 53: 1265–1275.
96.
HeloAPannaschSSirriL,et al.The maturation of eye movement behavior: scene viewing characteristics in children and adults. Vision Res2014; 103: 83–91.
97.
XiaYLeibAYWhitneyD. Serial dependence in the perception of attractiveness. J Vis2016; 16: 28.
98.
KingAJBolNCumminsRG,et al.Improving visual behavior research in communication science: an overview, review, and reporting recommendations for using eye-tracking methods. Commun Methods Meas2019; 13: 149–177.
99.
SanoTGondoMOsakaY,et al.The effects of image resolution and exposure duration on facial beauty and ugliness evaluations. Acta Psychol (Amst)2025; 252: 104635.
100.
ChoVYLohXHAbbottL, et al.Reporting eye-tracking studies in DEntistry (RESIDE) checklist. J Dent2023; 129: 104359.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
