Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40047106›Full record

Observational studyJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025

The Psychosocial Impact on Gingival Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIGAQ): The Effect of Sociodemographic Variables on Results in a Spanish Adult Population. An Observational and Cross-Sectional Study.

Cristina Gómez-Polo, Manuel Antonio Sánchez de Martín, Ana María Martín Casado

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Cristina Gómez-PoloDepartment of Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Manuel Antonio Sánchez de MartínDepartment of Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Ana María Martín CasadoDepartment of Statistics, School of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(1) Describe and categorize the scores obtained by the study sample for the PIGAQ as a whole and each of its subscales; (2) compare the psychosocial impact of self-perceived gingival aesthetics shown by the results for each subscale, determining which subscale shows the greatest impact, in relation to each of the following variables: gender, age, educational level, and involvement with the dentistry profession (non-professionals/professionals).

methodsThis observational and cross-sectional study is based on in-person interviews conducted by 10 trained operators, who administered the PIGAQ and collected data on gender, age, educational level, and connections to the dental profession in an adult (18-85 years) Spanish population. The data were collected over a 6-month period in 2024 in several regions of Spain. The main research outcome was the PIGAQ questionnaire (Likert scale) comprising 20 items in four subscales: gingival self-confidence (GSC), social impact (SI), psychological impact (PI), and aesthetic concern (AC), with a total score of 0-80 points. Data were analyzed using SPSS (v.28).

resultsIn the sample, the subscale where self-perceived gingival aesthetics showed the highest negative impact was GSC, whereas the lowest negative impact was recorded for the SI subscale (with 36.5% and 1.0% of participants' scores representing a large negative impact, respectively). Significant psychosocial engagement with their gingival aesthetics was recorded for 5% of the study population (41-80). Total PIGAQ scores were significantly (p < 0.05) higher (a greater negative psychosocial impact) in participants who were male (21.23), aged 60 or over (23.83), not involved with the dental profession (19.90) and had only completed compulsory education (25.08). A significantly higher negative impact (p < 0.05) was recorded for participants aged 60 or over in the GSC (13.13), PI (4.88), and AC (2.96) subscales than for other age groups.

conclusionsThe negative psychosocial impact of self-perceived gingival aesthetics is low, with the highest impact recorded for the GSC subscale, and lower impacts experienced by participants who were female, aged under 26, had university-level education, and were involved with the dental profession. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Data are lacking on the psychological and social impacts suffered by patients who are dissatisfied with their gingival aesthetics, and how these impacts relate to sociodemographic variables. To date, no research has been published addressing this issue in the Spanish population. Only 5% of the population gained high scores on the PIGAQ, with most negative impacts related to self-confidence in their gingival aesthetics. The variable that most negatively affected PIGAQ scores was age, although this effect was limited. Particular attention should be paid to male patients over 60 years with compulsory-level education only, as this group has a greater tendency to present with psychosocial distress caused by a negative self-assessment of gingival aesthetics.

Indexed as

Esthetics, DentalGingivaAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf ConceptSpainSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultagegendergingival aestheticsgingival psychosocial perceptionsPsychosocial Impact of Gingival Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIGAQ)Spanish population

Identifiers

PMID40047106
PMCPMC12159784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.