Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36797718›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

Perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2-dimensional photographs and 3-dimensional dentofacial images: a cross-sectional study.

Zhuoxing Xiao, Gui Chen, Yijiao Zhao, Yong Wang, Yan Gu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Zhuoxing XiaoNational Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Gui ChenNational Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Yijiao ZhaoNational Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease % National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Center of Digital Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Yong WangNational Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease % National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Center of Digital Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Yan GuNational Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China. guyan96@126.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China NSF81970979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the perceptual difference of smile aesthetics between 2D photographs and 3D dentofacial images as perceived by orthodontists and graduate students.

methodsForty-eight subjects finished orthodontic treatment were recruited with 2D photographs of frontal, oblique and lateral views as well as 3D dentofacial images. Twelve senior orthodontists and 13 postgraduate students were asked to rate the 2D and 3D smile simulations based on visual analog scale (VAS) and to vote for smile features that affect the attractiveness of smile. At the end, they completed a questionnaire about their views on different smile simulations. Wilcoxon signed-rank, Bland-Altman analysis, and multiple linear regression were used to compare the ratings and votes of smile perception between raters and between records.

resultsOrthodontists and postgraduate students rated smile consistently with 2D photographs, while orthodontists tended to give a higher rate for unattractive smiles and a lower rate for attractive smiles with 3D dentofacial images. The 3D dentofacial images were rated significantly lower than 2D photographs and the voting of most of the smile features showed significant negative main effect on VAS scores, while the effect of demographic characteristics of raters, voting on visible width of upper dentition and buccal corridor was not significant. In addition, a significant negative main effect of commissure and facial profile was found on the rating discrepancy between 2D and 3D images.

conclusionsSenior orthodontists tend to perceived 3D images more conservatively in smile evaluation. 3D dentofacial images were rated lower than 2D photographs and most of the smile features affect the aesthetic perception of smile. The perceptual difference of commissure and facial profile contributed to the lower ratings in 3D dentofacial images.

Indexed as

Esthetics, DentalToothAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHumansOrthodontistsSmiling2D photograph3D dentofacial imageAestheticsSmile

Identifiers

PMID36797718
PMCPMC9933254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.