ArticleScientific reports2026
Perception of AI-generated smile versus real orthodontic treatment outcomes among dentists, students, and laypeople.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In orthodontics, the increasing use of AI-generated smile images in patient communication raises ethical and practical concerns about user perception and misinterpretation of these visuals. This cross-sectional, non-probabilistic sample study evaluated the ability of dentists, dental students, and laypeople to distinguish between real and AI-generated orthodontic smile images, and their perceived attractiveness. The final sample consisted of 288 participants, (63.4% female; mean age = 32.4 years) including 76 dentists, 63 dental students, and 149 laypeople. Each participant was presented with three clinical scenarios, mild dental misalignment, midline diastema, and moderate anterior crowding, and viewed randomized sets of images depicting pre-treatment, real post-treatment, and AI-generated smiles. For each image, participants indicated whether they believed it was AI-generated or real and rated its aesthetic appeal using a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 100. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and diagnostic performance metrics (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV), with attractiveness ratings compared between AI-generated and real images. Sensitivity for identifying AI-generated images was low across all groups (< 50%), while specificity for recognizing real images was high (> 87%). Dental students achieved the highest overall accuracy (72.7%), followed by laypeople (66.3%) and dentists (62.6%). AI-generated smiles were consistently rated as significantly more attractive than real outcomes by all groups (mean VAS: 78.8 vs. 37.9; p < 0.001). AI-generated smile images were less accurately identified and more aesthetically pleasing than real clinical outcomes compared to real post-treatment outcomes, which were more consistently recognized across all participant groups, regardless of treatment type.
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.