ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
A Comparison of Varying Golden Proportion on Smile Aesthetic Perception Between Patients, Orthodontists and Restorative Dentists.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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.
- A Comparison of Varying Golden Proportion on Smile Aesthetic Perception Between Patients, Orthodontists and Restorative Dentists.International journal of dentistry · 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
Objective: The study aimed to assess how variations in the golden proportion (GP) influence aesthetic perception among three groups: orthodontic patients, orthodontists and restorative dentists. It sought to determine a range of aesthetic tolerance for lateral incisors and canines, addressing gaps in previous literature. Method and Materials: Our cross-sectional study included 128 participants (orthodontic patients and clinicians). Standardised smile photographs were digitally altered from a range of 52%-77% at 5% intervals. Participants rated photos on a five-point Likert scale. The range was determined by analysing scores using the interquartile range (IQR), focusing on photographs with a median ≥3 and outliers were then removed. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Results: Patients accepted a broader range of GP (52%-77%) compared to orthodontists (62%-67%), operative dentists (57%-72%) and prosthodontists (62%-72%). Between-group differences were significant for the majority of photographs ( Conclusions: The study concludes that the GP is more applicable as a range rather than a fixed value. Patients showed a wider aesthetic preference than clinicians. The patients' perceptions were closer to restorative dentists than orthodontists ( Clinical Significance: The clinical significance of the study lies in its potential to improve treatment outcomes in both aesthetic dentistry and orthodontics. The study highlights the need for a flexible, range-based approach while using the GP to achieve diverse aesthetic demands. The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between restorative dentists and orthodontists in procedures such as space closures and teeth remodelling is emphasised, ultimately improving aesthetic and functional outcomes. It also acknowledges the variability in aesthetic perception among different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
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.