ArticleJournal of orthodontics2026
The influence of varying degrees of maxillary gingival display on perception of smile aesthetics: A dynamic smile visualisation study.
Article in Journal of orthodontics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the influence of varying degrees of gingival display on perception of smile aesthetics judged by orthodontists, dentists and lay people.
designCross-sectional study.
settingBarts and the London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
participantsThree groups of raters comprising 25 orthodontists, 25 dentists and 25 lay people.
methodsVideos in increments of 1.5 mm of the final lip position ranging from 3 mm incisal coverage to 7.5 mm of gingival display were produced. Three rater groups assessed the attractiveness of smile videos using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Multiple regression analysis was undertaken, and images were compared using the Tukey HSD method.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.65% (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.71), indicating moderate intra-rater reliability. The highest ranking for female videos was with 1.5 mm of incisal coverage, with no significant difference between 3 mm of incisal coverage and 3 mm of gingival exposure. For the male videos, the highest ranking was 0 mm of gingival show, with no significant difference between 1.5 mm of incisal coverage and 1.5 mm of gingival exposure. There was a significant drop in the scores with further increase in gingival exposure, with more than 6 mm being rated very low aesthetically. Video rating was not influenced by rater group (female:
conclusionThere is a significant difference in the perception of smile aesthetics with varying amounts of gingival show. There is a clear threshold of acceptance up to 3 mm of gingival display for the female videos and 1.5 mm in for the male videos, after which the aesthetics of the smile decline with increments of increasing gingival display. No significant differences were observed in the perception of smile aesthetics with varying amounts of gingival show between orthodontists, dentists and lay people.
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.