ArticleOdontology2026
Comparative perception of smiles designed by AI vs. dentist using standard esthetic rules: a visual preference study among laypeople and dental professionals.
Article in Odontology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly emerged as a transformative tool in digital smile design, offering automated and data-driven esthetic solutions. However, the comparative perception of AI-generated smiles and those designed by dental professionals remains unclear. To compare the esthetic perception, preference, and acceptance of smiles designed by artificial intelligence and dental professionals using standard esthetic principles among laypeople and dental professionals. A prospective, cross-sectional visual preference study was conducted involving 180 participants, including dental professionals and laypersons. Two patients (one male and one female) were selected, and for each, two smile designs were created: one using AI and the other by a dentist following standard esthetic guidelines. Participants evaluated both designs using a 5-point Likert scale based on extraoral and intraoral parameters. Preference and identification of designs were assessed using comparative questions. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, exact binomial test, and chi-square test, with p< 0.05 considered significant. Dentist-designed smiles received significantly higher esthetic scores than AI-generated designs (Patient 1: 3.89± 1.03 vs 2.93 ± 1.04; Patient 2: 3.95 ± 1.15 vs 3.04 ± 1.05; p < 0.001). A majority of participants preferred dentist-designed smiles as more natural (76.1% and 78.3%) and more attractive (80.6% and 81.1%) (p < 0.001). Participants were able to correctly identify AI-generated designs in 66.1% and 69.4% of cases. Most participants (87.1%) favored a collaborative approach combining AI with dentist expertise. Under the conditions of this study, dentist-designed smiles received higher ratings and were perceived as more esthetic than AI-generated designs. A combined approach integrating AI with professional judgment is recommended for optimal esthetic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42624978What 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.