ArticleAustralian dental journal2025
Aesthetic Preferences for Replacement of Missing Maxillary Lateral Incisors: A Comparison of Canine Substitution, Implants and Resin-Bonded Bridges Among Australian Dental Professionals and Laypeople.
Article in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and reliability of the smile perception scale in Turkish children aged 8-10 years.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAesthetic outcomes of treatment options for missing maxillary lateral incisors significantly influence patient satisfaction. This study compared aesthetic treatment outcome preferences for canine substitution, resin-bonded bridges and implants among Australian orthodontists, prosthodontists, general dentists and laypeople.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey assessed attractiveness ratings and preferences using a ranking system and a Likert scale. One-way and two-way ANOVA examined differences by respondent group and treatment type.
resultsAmong 547 respondents (orthodontists: 117, prosthodontists: 56, general dentists: 167, laypeople: 207), significant differences were found in aesthetic ratings (p < 0.001). Canine substitution was rated most attractive (mean rank = 1.43), followed by resin-bonded bridges (1.78), while implants (2.81) and no treatment (3.99) were rated lower. Two-way ANOVA showed significant main effects of treatment type and respondent group (p < 0.001), with an interaction effect indicating varied preferences among groups.
conclusionsCanine substitution was the preferred treatment outcome aesthetically, particularly among orthodontists. Resin-bonded bridges were also favoured. These findings highlight the impact of professional background on aesthetic preferences and emphasise the need for patient-centred treatment planning.
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.