Don't miss a digital issue! Renew/subscribe for FREE today.
 Advertisement ×
February 2022
Volume 43, Issue 2

Gingival Display in “Forced” Smile Evaluated by Sex and Age

Douglas H. Mahn, DDS; and Sina Reangber, DDS


The smile is a standard by which individuals often are judged. Gingival display is an important component of the smile. While perceptions vary between the sexes and between laypeople and dental professionals, gingival display of ≥4 mm has been considered excessive and unattractive. The amount of gingiva that an individual displays can vary depending on the type of smile the individual produces. An emotional or forced smile will produce greater upper lip movement and gingival display than a posed smile. Much of the dental literature that discusses gingival display focuses on subjects of a limited age range, has a limited number of subjects, or neglects to determine the gingival display with maximum upper lip movement. The purpose of this prospective observational investigation was to document the smile type, gingival display, and upper lip movement of male and female subjects in different age groups.

The smile is an important standard by which individuals judge themselves and others.1-8 Positive and negative personality traits have been attributed to certain smile features.4-8 For example, a bright smile with well-proportioned teeth that are clearly displayed has been associated with the qualities of maturity, strength, and social competence.5 Thus, the smile can have a social impact on an individual.

Elements of an attractive smile include tooth size, shade, and alignment, diastemas, symmetry, buccal corridor, and gingival display (GD).9-13 Laypeople and dental professionals have different sensitivities toward and perceptions of smile esthetics.14-18 For example, orthodontists, general dentists, and laypeople were found to have detected specific dental esthetic discrepancies, such as maxillary midline, at varying levels of deviation.14 In addition, patients were found to have a significantly higher opinion of their own smiles than evaluating clinicians.16 Good communication between the patient and dental professional, therefore, is critical to successful treatment outcomes.

Maxillary GD is a key component to consider when evaluating the smile.19,20 Perception regarding the esthetic impact of GD varies between the sexes and between laypeople and dental professionals.21-23 GD in the esthetic zone of ≥4 mm has been considered excessive and unattractive.14,15GD has been considered increasingly less esthetic as it progresses from 3 mm to 7 mm.24 Examples of smiles that demonstrate various amounts of gingival display are shown in Figure 1 through Figure 5.

The smile can be characterized as being either emotional or posed.25 The emotional smile is involuntary and may vary with the emotion being experienced.26 The Duchenne smile, an early smile classification, is defined as an involuntary and emotional smile.26,27 In contrast, the posed or non-Duchenne smile is voluntary.26-28 If the voluntary smile is routinely presented, it could be considered the individual's natural smile.26 The emotional or Duchenne smile can be mimicked.29,30 Peck's classification described a stage II smile as a forced or strained smile resulting in maximal upper lip elevation.28

When a dental patient is asked to smile, the clinician may be uncertain of the type of smile the patient is presenting. It may be a natural smile that the patient normally poses, or it may be less than the person's natural smile due to a cautious attitude that the patient may have in the office. Alternatively, the patient may show a forced smile that maximizes tooth and gingival display and which mimics their emotional smile. The differences in tooth and gingival display between the posed and emotional smiles can have important implications for diagnostics and treatment planning.30

Tjan et al's article discussing GD in the smile is a frequently cited study.31 It evaluated only natural smiles in full-face photographs. All subjects were between the ages of 20 and 30 years. Smile types were divided into low (Figure 1), average (Figure 2), and high (Figure 3 through Figure 5) based on the amount of maxillary anterior tooth and gingival display. Their investigation provides important preliminary information into the prevalence of GD in the smile. However, Tjan et al's study design creates areas of uncertainty with regard to the authors' findings. Since subjects were asked to smile without instructions, the normalcy of the lip position, interocclusal clearance, and GD provided is unknown. Because no objective measurements of the GD were made, it cannot be determined how many of the study subjects with a high smile type actually had excessive (≥4 mm) GD. Also, since all subjects were between the ages of 20 and 30 years, the prevalence of smile types in older age groups was not determined.

The purpose of this prospective observational investigation was to document the smile type, GD, and upper lip movement (ULM) of male and female subjects in different age groups.

Materials and Methods

A prospective observational investigation of GD during smiling was conducted on patients seen consecutively in two private practices over approximately 2 years (2017-2019). These patients presented to the practices as part of their regularly scheduled appointments. Subject inclusion requirements were that all patients were between 20 and 79 years of age. Due to the small number of non-white patients of different ethnic backgrounds seen in these practices, only white patients were included in this investigation. Subjects with severe plaque/drug-induced gingival enlargement were excluded. A history of orthodontic treatment, orthognathic surgery, periodontal surgery, or restorative rehabilitation did not exclude a patient. All patients had intact maxillary dentitions, with at least bilateral first molar occlusion.

Measurement-taking was standardized between examiners in the two offices. All measurements were obtained using periodontal probes with millimeter markings. GD was measured as the distance from the gingival margin or cementoenamel junction of the maxillary central incisors to the inferior border of the upper lip when the patient was exhibiting a forced smile with the maximum ULM and with the posterior teeth touching. If measurement levels of the central incisors were not symmetrical, the central incisor that the examiner thought looked most harmonious with the appearance of teeth Nos. 6 through 11 was chosen. The ULM was measured by first determining the lip border at rest; the patient was then asked to smile with maximum ULM. The ULM was measured as the difference between these two points.

The smile type was determined by asking the patient to smile with maximum ULM and with their posterior teeth in full occlusion. Following Tjan et al's protocol,31 the smile was divided into three categories. A high smile type (S1) revealed the total cervicoincisal length of the maxillary anterior teeth (teeth Nos. 6 through 11) and a contiguous band of gingiva. An average smile type (S2) revealed 75% to 100% of the maxillary anterior teeth and the interproximal gingival only; a contiguous band of gingiva of the maxillary anterior teeth was not present in the S2 category. A low smile type (S3) revealed less than 75% of the anterior teeth.

Results were categorized by sex and age. Age categories were made in 10-year increments starting with 20 years of age. Age categories included: A (20-29), B (30-39), C (40-49), D (50-59), E (60-69), and F (70-79). A T (20-30) category was added to facilitate better comparison to the study performed by Tjan et al.31


A total of 736 subjects were included in the study; 463 were females and 273 were males, representing 62.9% and 37.1%, respectively. Table 1 shows the number of subjects divided by sex and age categories.

Table 2 shows the averages of all measurements and smile classifications for females and males of all ages. Females of all age groups had an average of 1.5 mm GD. The percentage with ≥4 mm of GD was 14.9 %, and their average ULM was 7.1 mm. The percentages of their smile types were: S1 = 33%, S2 = 51.4%, and S3 = 15.6%. Males of all ages had an average of 1 mm GD. The percentage with ≥4 mm of GD was 7.7%, and their average ULM was 6.6 mm. The percentage of their smile types was: S1 = 19%, S2 = 50.9%, and S3 = 30%.

Table 3 shows average GD above the central incisors in millimeters by sex and age category. In all age categories, females had a higher average GD than males. Both females and males were found to have a downward trend of average GD from category A (20-29) to category F (70-79) of 2.6 mm to 1 mm and 1.9 mm to 0.5 mm, respectively.

Table 4 shows the percentage of subjects with ≥4 mm of GD by sex and age category. In all age categories, females had a higher percentage of subjects with ≥4 mm of GD than males. Both females and males were found to have a downward trend from category A (20-29) to category F (70-79) of 33.3% to 9.8% and 22.9% to 0%, respectively.

Table 5 shows the percentage of subjects with smile types S1-S3 by sex and age category. In all age categories, females had a higher percentage of S1 than males. Males had a higher percentage of S3 than females in all age categories except category C (40-49).

Finally, Table 6 shows the average ULM by sex and age category. In all age categories, females had a higher average ULM than males. Both females and males were found to have a downward trend from category A (20-29) to category F (70-79) of 7.6 mm to 7 mm and 7.2 mm to 6.3 mm, respectively.


In the Tjan et al study, all of the subjects were between the ages of 20 and 30 years.31 The authors found 13.8% of women and 6.8% of men had a high smile type. These findings do not match well with the findings in the present study. In the T category (ages 20-30 years) in the present study, 54.9% of women and 31.6% of men were determined to have a high smile type. The findings are approximately four times the amount found in the Tjan et al study.31 Similarly, a higher percentage of females and males were determined to have a low smile type in the Tjan et al study as compared to this study.

An explanation for the difference between the findings could be the smile instructions given to the subjects. In the Tjan et al study, no specific smile instructions were given to the subjects.31 It could be anticipated that if subjects were not asked to smile with their maximum ULM, they may not have done so voluntarily. In the present study, subjects were specifically instructed to give a forced smile with maximum ULM. As a result, this study would record a greater percentage of subjects with high smile type.

The Tjan et al study was a survey based on full-face photographs.31 Their definition of a high smile was an open smile revealing the total cervicoincisal length of the maxillary anterior teeth and a contiguous band of gingiva. No minimum measurement of GD was required to fit into the high smile category. Later studies deemed ≥4 mm of GD to be excessive.14,15 Considering Tjan et al's definition of a high smile type31 and that the definition of excess GD has been ≥4 mm, it is possible to have a high smile type without having excessive GD.

In the present study, the percentage of subjects with ≥4 mm of GD was determined. In the T category, 29.4% of females and 21.4% of men had ≥4 mm of GD. Subtracting these percentages from percentage of subjects determined to have a high smile type, this study found 25.5% of females and 10.2% of males had a high smile type but not excessive GD. Given the differences found in this study, it seems unlikely that Tjan et al's findings31 necessarily represent excessive GD.

Definite trends can be seen with regard to GD and smile category (Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5). In all age categories, females had higher GD than men. Both males and females had decreasing GD with increasing age. The average amount of GD decreased about 1.5 mm from age category A to F. The decrease in subjects with ≥4 mm of GD appeared to be more dramatic. Females went from 33.3% to 9.8%. Men went from 22.9% to 0%. An inverse relationship of percentage of patients of both sexes with smile type 1 and smile type 3 was seen with increasing age. With increasing age the percentage of subjects with smile type 1 decreased, while smile type 3 increased.

As a group and in all age categories, females had greater GD than males. Despite the decrease in GD with increasing age for females and males, a notable percentage of females show excessive GD in all age groups. These findings are consistent with studies evaluating tooth and gingival display in subjects from 20 to 60+ years of age.32-34 Especially for females, therefore, including measurements of GD could be considered a necessary part of a smile evaluation protocol.

Normal ULM has been reported to be 6 mm to 8 mm, from the repose position to the position achieved at a full smile.35,36 A recent study investigating excessive GD used 8 mm of ULM as the threshold for a hypermobile lip.37 The present study found the average of all females and all men to have average ULM of 7.1 mm and 6.6 mm, respectively. This study found females and males had less ULM with increasing age. The reduction in ULM from age category A to F was 0.6 mm for females and 0.9 mm for males. It is interesting to compare these changes to that of changes in average GD. The reduction in GD from age category A to F was 1.6 mm for females and 1.1 mm for males. It could be surmised that some of the reduction in GD could be due to reduction in ULM.

Upper lip length was not measured in this study. It has been reported that upper lip length increases with age.38,39 This may be another factor that contributes to decreasing GD with increasing age.


Based on the findings in this study, gingival display and the percentage of persons with a high smile type diminishes with increasing age. In all age groups, females have greater GD and a high smile type as compared to males. The percentage of females with excessive GD (≥4 mm) was also greater than with men in all age groups. ULM decreases with increasing age.

About the Author

Douglas H. Mahn, DDS
Private Practice limited to Periodontics and Implantology, Manassas, Virginia

Sina Reangber, DDS
Private Practice, Haymarket, Virginia


1. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(5):402-408.

2. Levinson NA. Psychologic facets of esthetic dental health care: a developmental perspective. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64(4):486-491.

3. York J, Holtzman J. Facial attractiveness and the aged.Spec Care Dentist. 1999;19(2):84-88.

4. Dong JK, Jin TH, Cho HW, Oh SC. The esthetics of the smile: a review of some recent studies.Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12(1):9-19.

5. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality.Angle Orthod. 2007;77(5):759-765.

6. Ambadar Z, Cohn JF, Reed LI. All smiles are not created equal: morphology and timing of smiles perceived as amused, polite, and embarrassed/nervous. J Nonverbal Behav. 2009;33(1):17-34.

7. Shore DM, Heerey EA. The value of genuine and polite smiles. Emotion. 2011;11(1):169-174.

8. Tsai JL, Blevins E, Bencharit LZ, et al. Cultural variation in social judgments of smiles: the role of ideal affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2019;116(6):966-988.

9. Qualtrough AJ, Burke FJ. A look at dental esthetics. Quintessence Int. 1994;25(1):7-14.

10. Rodrigues CDT, Magnani R, Machado MSC, Oliveira OB. The perception of smile attractiveness.Angle Orthod. 2009;79(4):634-639.

11. Oshagh M, Zarif NH, Bahramnia F. Evaluation of the effect of buccal corridor size on smile attractiveness. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2010;5(4):370-380.

12. Koidou VP, Chatzopoulos GS, Rosenstiel SF. Quantification of facial and smile esthetics. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(2):270-277.

13. Magne P, Salem P, Magne M. Influence of symmetry and balance on visual perception of a white female smile.J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(4):573-582.

14. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-324.

15. Kokich VA, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(2):141-151.

16. Jørnung J, Fardal Ø. Perceptions of patients' smiles: a comparison of patients' and dentists' opinions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(12):1544-1553.

17. Witt M, Flores-Mir C. Laypeople's preferences regarding frontal dentofacial esthetics: periodontal factors. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(8):925-937.

18. Fernandes L, Pinho T. Esthetic evaluation of dental and gingival asymmetries. Int Orthod.2015;13(2):221-231.

19. Nomura S, Freitas KMS, da Silva PPC, et al. Evaluation of the attractiveness of different gingival zeniths in smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23(5):47-57.

20. Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. 1995;1(2):105-126.

21. Geron S, Atalia W. Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):778-784.

22. Pithon MM, Santos AM, Viana de Andrade AC, et al. Perception of the esthetic impact of gingival smile on laypersons, dental professionals, and dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(4):448-454.

23. Pausch NC, Katsoulis D. Gender-specific evaluation of variation of maxillary exposure when smiling. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(6):913-920.

24. Suzuki L, Machado AW, Bittencourt MAV. An evaluation of the influence of gingival display level in the smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;16(5):37.e1-10.

25. Walder JF, Freeman K, Lipp MJ, et al. Photographic and videographic assessment of the smile: objective and subjective evaluations of posed and spontaneous smiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):793-801.

26. Duchenne de Boulogne GB, Cuthbertson RA, ed. The Mechanism of Human Facial Expression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1990 (original work published 1862).

27. Ekman P, Davidson RJ, Friesen WV. The Duchenne smile: emotional expression and brain physiology: II. J Pers and Soc Psychol. 1990;58(2):342-353.

28. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The gingival smile line. Angle Orthod. 1992;62(2):91-100.

29. Gunnery SD, Hall JA, Ruben MA. The deliberate Duchenne smile: individual differences in expressive control. J Nonverbal Behav. 2013;37(1):29-41.

30. Van Der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Berge SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Tooth display and lip position during spontaneous and posed smiling in adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2008;66(4):207-213.

31. Tjan AH, Miller GD, The JG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;51(1):24-28.

32. Vig RG, Brundo GC. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39(5):502-504.

33. Al-Habahbeh R, Al-Shammout R, Al-Jabrah O, Al-Omari F. The effect of gender on tooth and gingival display in the anterior region at rest and during smiling. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009;4(4):382-395.

34. Khan F, Abbas M. Frequency of gingival display during smiling and comparison of biometric measurements in subjects with and without gingival display.J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014;24(7):503-507.

35. Robbins JW. Differential diagnosis and treatment of excess gingival display. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11(2):265-272.

36. Bhola M, Fairbairn PJ, Kolhatkar S, et al. LipStaT: the lip stabilization technique - indications and guidelines for case selection and classification of excessive gingival display. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015;35(4):549-559.

37. Andijani RI, Tatakis DN. Hypermobile upper lip is highly prevalent among patients seeking treatment for gummy smile. J Periodontol. 2019;90(3):256-262.

38. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Age-related changes of the dental aesthetic zone at rest and during spontaneous smiling and speech. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(4):366-373.

39. Sforza C, Grandi G, Binelli M, et al. Age- and sex-related changes in three-dimensional lip morphology. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;200(1-3):182.e1-e7.

© 2022 AEGIS Communications | Privacy Policy