Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35821719›Full record

ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2022

Assessment of Orofacial Esthetics among Different Specialists in Dental Medicine: A pilot study.

Natalija Prica, Asja Čelebić, Ines Kovačić, Nikola Petričević

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Perception of Orofacial Esthetics Using a Scan-Free Virtual Video Mock-Up: A Comparative Analysis of Self-Evaluation Versus Unknown-People Assessment.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalija PricaPhD student, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb; Dental Clinics Zagreb.ORCID 0000-0002-5929-2744
Asja ČelebićDepartment of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb.ORCID 0000-0001-5985-8966
Ines KovačićDepartment of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb.ORCID 0000-0001-8505-5251
Nikola PetričevićDepartment of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb.ORCID 0000-0002-1048-063X
University of Zagreb · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Little is known whether specialists in different dental fields assess orofacial esthetics differently due to various focus of their interest. The aim was to find out if there is a difference in judgement of orofacial esthetics among specialists in three different fields of Dental Medicine, i.e. specialists in Prosthodontics (S-Prosthod), Periodontology (S-Perio), and Orthodontics (S-Ortho). Material and methods: A total of 69 specialists (23 participants in each group) assessed the same 60 photographs of the lower third of the face of young healthy people with Angle Class I and natural teeth while smiling. Moreover, the assessed anterior teeth on the photographs of similes had to be without any restorations. The assessments were made using 7 out of 8 Items of Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES). A face profile assessment was not performed. A Likert 1-5 scale was used for assessments (1-the worst score; 5-the best score). Mean values of summary scores as well as of each OES item were calculated for each specialist for further statistical analysis. One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Sheffe post-hoc tests were performed. Results: The specialists in Periodontology gave significantly lowest scores to all 7 items related to orofacial esthetics, while the specialists in Prosthodontics gave the highest scores (p<0.05). Conclusion: Assessments of orofacial esthetics differ significantly among specialists in Prosthodontics, Periodontology and Orthodontics. Further study is needed to clarify the factors which influence the judgement, and to find out if specific education in certain specialties can modify the assessment.

Indexed as

AssessmentDentistsMeSH Terms: Dental EstheticsOrofacial EstheticsSpecialists in Dentistry, Prosthodontics, Periodontology, OrthodonticsVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID35821719
PMCPMC9262108
OpenAlexW4283577989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.