Smile Attractiveness and Treatment Needs of Maxillary Midline Diastema with Various Widths: Perception among Laypersons, Dental Students, and Dentists in Malaysia
Table 3
Relationship between different sociodemographic variables and mean aesthetic scores of 0.5, 2.0, and 4.0 mm maxillary midline diastema (MMD).
Variables
MMD 0.5 mm
MMD 2.0 mm
MMD 4.0 mm
Mean (SD)
p-value
Mean (SD)
p-value
Mean (SD)
p-value
Gender
Male (0)
2.05 (0.75)
1.42 (0.76)
1.32 (0.78)
0.703
Female (1)
2.34 (0.76)
1.62 (0.83)
1.35 (0.82)
Age (years)
20–29 (0)
2.26 (0.77)
0.648
1.60 (0.85)
0.615
1.39 (0.87)
30–39 (1)
2.29 (0.85)
1.45 (0.66)
1.20 (0.55)
40–49 (2)
2.38 (0.80)
1.52 (0.75)
1.24 (0.70)
50–59 (3)
2.47 (0.72)
1.53 (0.72)
1.12 (0.33)
Ethnicity
Malay (0)
2.35 (0.78)
1.56 (0.75)
0.845
1.32 (0.74)
0.289
Chinese (1)
1.91 (0.66)
1.66 (1.09)
1.22 (0.14)
Indian (2)
2.32 (0.80)
1.56 (0.92)
0.85 (0.17)
Others (3)
2.17 (0.75)
1.50 (0.55)
0.00 (0.00)
Educational level
Secondary school (0)
2.00 (0.60)
1.25 (0.45)
0.546
1.08 (0.29)
Foundation (1)
2.06 (0.75)
1.58 (0.92)
1.49 (0.96)
Bachelor’s degree (2)
2.39 (0.77)
1.59 (0.76)
1.29 (0.73)
Master’s degree and above (3)
2.45 (0.83)
1.53 (0.83)
1.24 (0.71)
History of having midline diastema
Yes (0)
1.57 (0.82)
0.850
1.56 (0.75)
0.905
1.59 (0.89)
No (1)
1.56 (0.75)
1.57 (0.82)
1.33 (0.80)
Two simple t-test = gender, history of having midline diastema; one-way ANOVA = age, race, and educational level. Significant difference of mean attractive score between groups, .
