ArticleBMC medical education2025
Assessment of dental students' perceptions of facial and smile aesthetics: impact of gender, education level, and family background.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Deep Learning-Based Evaluation of Maxillary Dental Midline Deviation on Orthodontic Frontal Photographs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe aim of the study was to identify whether differences existed in the aesthetic perception of anatomical variations of the face and teeth among dental students, based on factors such as education level, gender, and the presence of a dentist in the family.
methodsThe study was carried out with dental students using the Google Forms platform. A young female model was selected for the survey, with no aesthetic-compromising restorations or pathologies in her maxillary anterior teeth. Standard facial and smile reference photographs were digitally manipulated to alter specific aesthetic features using professional image-editing software (Adobe Photoshop v.20.0.0, Adobe Inc., San Jose, California, USA). Participants evaluated these photographs, focusing on components such as facial symmetry, gingival position, buccal corridor, and occlusal plane angulation. Preclinical and clinical students rated the original and manipulated images on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 representing the most aesthetically acceptable image and 1 representing the least pleasing one. Statistical analysis comprised Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene test, Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsIn the research, 493 students participated, including 240 clinical students; 312 were female, and 89 had a dentist in their family. The overall aesthetic perception score was high (82.63 ± 8.5). Clinical students demonstrated significantly better perceptions of midline diastema, occlusal plane inclination, clinical crown height, and dental modifications compared to preclinical students (p < 0.05). Female students scored higher in lower facial height perception than males (p = 0.014). The presence of a dentist in the family did not significantly influence aesthetic perception (p > 0.05).
conclusionClinical training positively impacted students' ability to critically analyze aesthetics while maintaining function and naturalness. It can be suggested that, as the academic level increases in dental education, students' aesthetic judgment skills also improve.
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.