ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2024
Aesthetic assessment of maxillary lateral and canine implant-supported crowns by laypersons and orthodontists.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Laypersons' esthetic assessment of teeth with de- or hypomineralization - a web-based survey.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objectives of this study were to evaluate how laypersons and orthodontists evaluate and rank aesthetic parameters of an implant-supported crown (ISC) on the canine position (ISC-C) and lateral position (ISC-L).
methodsA digital survey of 11 cases, 5 ISC-C, 5 ISC-L and 1 control case without ISC, was distributed to 207 laypersons and 296 orthodontists. All cases included one extraoral photograph and three intraoral photographs. The respondents were asked to identify the ISC and to evaluate the aesthetic parameters regarding colour of the implant (CI), shape of the implant (SI) and gingival colour around ISC (GCI). Differences within and between the groups were tested using Chi-2-test and Independent-Samples t-test.
resultsAll invited laypersons and 184 orthodontists (62% response rate) answered the survey. Orthodontists (89%) more correctly identified the ISC, regardless of its position, than laypersons (50%) (p < 0.001). Both laypersons (54%) and orthodontists (23%) rated higher proportions of acceptance of CI, SI and GCI in favour for the ISC-L than ISC-C (laypersons: 40%, orthodontists: 10%) (p < 0.001). Assessing each parameter separately, orthodontists rated higher for ISC-L, compared to the ISC-C (p < 0.001). In general, laypersons and orthodontist ranked tooth colour (mean, standard deviation [SD]:8.0,1.5 and 9.0, 1.0) and tooth shape (mean, SD: 8.0, 1.7 and 8.8, 1.2) as aesthetically higher than the gingival colour (mean, SD: 7.2, 2.2 and 8.0, 1.7) (p > 0.001). Conclusion: Laypersons and orthodontists consider the ISC-L as aesthetically more preferable, compared to the ISC-C.
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.