ArticlePloS one2026
Visual self-assessment of dental appearance: A comparison of mirror types and digital reflection via smartphone front facing camera.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn dental practice, patients often evaluate their own dental attractiveness using mirrors or smartphone digital reflections. This study aimed to investigate how mirror size, shape, magnification and smartphone-based digital reflection influence self-perceived dental attractiveness. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective cross-sectional study. Eighty-three participants assessed their dental attractiveness using a randomised sequence of reflective devices, including mirrors of different sizes (full-length, medium, small, standard pocket), a magnified pocket mirror, a tooth-shaped mirror, and a smartphone front-facing camera. Ratings were recorded on a 10-point visual analogue scale. Data were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons. Intra-rater reliability was evaluated in a subset of participants using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsRepeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant overall effect of device type on dental attractiveness (F(4.62, 378.83) = 15.57, p < 0.001). Post hoc analyses showed no significant differences among full-length, medium, small, and standard pocket mirrors, or between these mirrors and the smartphone reflection (all p > 0.05). The magnified pocket mirror and tooth-shaped mirror were rated significantly lower than other devices (p < 0.001). Intra-rater reliability was generally poor (ICC < 0.35), with only the medium-size and tooth-shaped mirrors showing moderate agreement (ICC = 0.59 and 0.63, respectively).
conclusionReflective device type influences self-perceived dental attractiveness. Standard mirrors of different sizes and smartphone reflections produced similar and generally favourable ratings. In contrast, magnified and tooth-shaped mirrors yielded lower ratings. Poor intra-rater reliability suggests that self-assessment based on reflection alone is inconsistent.
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.