ArticleGalen medical journal2025
Perception of Altered Smile Esthetics by Orthodontists, General Dentists, and Laypeople :.
Article in Galen medical journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Considering the significance of creation of a consonant smile arc and gap of information on the role of smile arc, gingival margin position, and the golden ratio in smile esthetics, this study assessed the perception of laypeople, general dentists, and orthodontists from altered smile esthetics. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted in 2019 with three rater groups: orthodontists (n=31), general dentists (n=49), and laypeople (n=61). A standardized frontal-view smile photograph of a female subject was digitally altered using Photoshop (version 19) to create images differing in (a) gingival margin position (four variations), (b) golden ratio (62%, 70%, and 80%), and (c) smile arc curvature (five variations). Raters, blinded to the alterations, evaluated each image's attractiveness using a 10-point Likert scale. Due to non-normal data distribution, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Friedman tests were used for analysis (α=0.05). Results: The highest overall attractiveness ratings were given to the image with equal gingival margins for central and lateral incisors (M=7.16 ± 2.04), followed by the lateral margins 1 mm below the centrals (M=7.04 ± 2.01). Wider golden ratios (80%) were rated more attractive across all groups. Laypeople rated flat and reverse smile arcs significantly higher than general dentists and orthodontists (P.05). No significant gender-based differences were observed in any category. Conclusion: The three rater groups had the same opinion regarding the smile attractiveness of most altered images except for the reverse smile arc, which was only favored by the laypeople.
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.