ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Asymmetric Gingival Margins of Maxillary Central Incisors: Does It Matter to Lay Persons and Professionals.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the aesthetic judgements made by lay people and professionals relating to an asymmetric maxillary central incisors' gingival margin position.
settingMulti-center institutional study. MATERIALS AND
methodsA high-quality intra-oral photograph of a previously treated case was manipulated (six images). Parents of children undergoing conventional orthodontic treatment (PCT), parents of children undergoing combined surgical-orthodontic treatment for a unilateral impacted maxillary central incisor (PI) and professionals (dental and orthodontic specialists) were asked to evaluate and rank the images in terms of aesthetics and provide free-text responses to support their rankings (least and most attractive). All data was analysed statistically with regressions at 5% and a thematic analysis of the free-text responses was performed.
resultsThe responses from 120 participants (mean age 42.2 years; Standard Deviation [SD] 8.6 years; 62.2% female) were analysed (30/group). Image E (symmetrical gingival margins with the lateral incisor gingival margins 0.5-1.0 mm below both the gingival margin of the maxillary canine and central incisor which are at the same level in relation to each other) was ranked the most attractive (60.8%). The presence of an asymmetric gingival margin between the maxillary central incisors was rated the least attractive (Images D and F; 30.9% and 39.2%, respectively). The highest and lowest mean ranking scores (adjusted for gender) were Image E (5.12 points; 95% CI: 4.76-5.48 points) and F (1.83 points; 95% CI: 1.57-2.10 points) A similar trend was evident within groups. The PCT group scored Image D the lowest (2.17 points; 95% CI: 1.72-2.62 points). Gender influenced the ranking of the images. Themes to support the ranking of the most attractive image were related to the importance of overall symmetry. Themes to support the ranking of the least attractive image were based on overall asymmetrical (uneven) appearance (n = 117).
conclusionAn asymmetric gingival margin position between the maxillary central incisors negatively influences the rating/perception of attractiveness by lay persons and professionals.
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.