ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Perception of Altered Smile Esthetics Including Buccal Corridor, Gingival Display, and Smile Arc by Dentists and Laypersons.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the perception of altered smile esthetics, including buccal corridor width, gingival display, and smile arc, among general dentists and laypersons. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 evaluators (20 dentists and 20 laypersons) assessed nine digitally modified smile images representing variations in buccal corridor, gingival display, and smile arc. Images were rated using a 5-point Visual Analog Scale, where 1 indicated the most attractive and 5 the least attractive. The Mann-Whitney Results: Both groups rated smiles with no buccal corridors as the most esthetic (1.60 dentists, 1.35 laypersons), while excessive buccal corridors were least favored. Gingival display of 0 mm was preferred by both groups (1.55 dentists, 1.35 laypersons), while 3-mm gingival display was least attractive. Dentists preferred a consonant smile arc (1.50), while laypersons were less critical (1.70). Conclusion: Although both groups shared similar esthetic preferences, dentists were more critical of smile variations than laypersons. These differences highlight the need for patient-centered esthetic treatment planning, considering professional judgment and patient expectations.
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.