ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Comparing Facial Attractiveness and Professional Acceptance Between Real and AI-Generated Orthodontic Treatment Outcome Images.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human perception of AI-generated post-treatment orthodontic facial images: factors associated with misclassification.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
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
backgroundFacial attractiveness influences social and professional perceptions, including competence and employability. With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate photorealistic faces, it is important to understand how these images compare to real orthodontic treatment outcomes.
objectiveTo compare perceptions of real versus AI-generated orthodontic treatment results in terms of attractiveness, employability, and distinguishability.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey included 288 Brazilian adults.
participantsDentists (n = 76), dental students (n = 63), and laypeople (n = 149). Each evaluated three sets of images (pre-treatment, post-treatment, and AI-generated post-treatment) for three patients. Participants rated facial attractiveness (VAS 0-100), assessed employability, and identified whether the image was AI-generated.
resultsAI-generated images were rated significantly more attractive than real post-treatment ones (mean VAS: AI = 68.8; Real = 54.4; p < 0.001). Dentists, students, and laypeople all rated AI images higher. Employability was also greater for AI images (50.4%) than real ones (39.1%) (p = 0.007). Misclassification was common, with dental students achieving the highest accuracy (66.8%).
conclusionParticipants showed limited ability to accurately distinguish between real and AI-generated images. AI-generated images were perceived as more attractive and had a greater positive impact on employability judgements compared to real post-treatment images.
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.