ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Attractive combinations of female gingival displays, buccal corridor sizes, and facial heights according to orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople of different ages and sexes: a psychometric study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A comparison of dental professionals' and patients' perceptions in assessing smile esthetics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The association between oral health-related quality-of-life and smile aesthetic indices among Chinese individuals.Medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of fixed orthodontic treatment with and without premolar extraction on gingival display index in men and women.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Preferences of Laypeople, General Dentists, and Dental Specialists Regarding the Position of Occlusal Plane and Dental Midline in Asymmetrical Faces.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Perception of Altered Smile Esthetics by Orthodontists, General Dentists, and Laypeople :.Galen medical journal · 2025Article
- Effects of facial forms and midline deviations and rolls on female facial beauty according to laypeople, orthodontists, and prosthodontists or restorative dentists.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Perspectives of laypeople towards the morphological characteristics of a youthful smile on frontal view: A computerized simulated photographic evaluation.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEsthetics plays a crucial role in orthodontics and many other dental and medical fields. To date, no study has assessed the combined effects of the 3 facial features 'facial height, gingival display (GD), and buccal corridor size (BC)' on facial/smile beauty. Therefore, this study was conducted for the first time.
methodsIn this psychometric diagnostic study, beauty of 27 randomized perceptometric images of a female model with variations in facial heights (short, normal, long), gingival displays (0, 2, 4, 6 mm), and buccal corridor sizes (2%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) were evaluated by 108 judges (36 orthodontists, 36 dentists, 36 laypeople) using a 5-scale Likert scale (1 to 5). Combined effects of facial heights, GDs, BCs, judges' sexes, ages, and jobs, and their 2-way interactions were tested using a mixed-model multiple linear regression and a Bonferroni test. Zones of ideal features were determined for all judges and also for each group using repeated-measures ANOVAs and the Bonferroni test (α=0.05).
resultsJudges' sex but not their age or expertise might affect their perception of female beauty: men gave higher scores. The normal face was perceived as more beautiful than the long face (the short face being the least attractive). Zero GD was the most attractive followed by 4 mm; 6 mm was the least appealing. BCs of 15% followed by 10% were the most attractive ones, while 25% BC was the worst. The zone of ideal anatomy was: long face + 0mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; long face + 2mm GD + 15% BC; normal face + 0mm GD + 15% BC.
conclusionsNormal faces, zero GDs, and 15% BCs may be the most appealing. Facial heights affect the perception of beauty towards GDs but not BCs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.