Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 844

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparing the Perception of Dentists and Lay People to Altered Dental Esthetics

KOKICH, VINCENT O., ASUMAN KIYAK, H., SHAPIRO, PETER A.·1999·Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: This study was designed to determine the perceptions of lay people and dental professionals with respect to minor variations in anterior tooth size and alignment and their relation to the surrounding soft tissues. Materials and Methods: Smiling photographs were intentionally altered with one of eight common anterior esthetic discrepancies in varying degrees of deviation, including variations in crown length, crown width, incisor crown angulation, midline, open gingival embrasure, gingival margin, incisal plane, and gingiva‐to‐lip distance. Forty images were randomized in a questionnaire and rated according to attractiveness by three groups: orthodontists, general dentists, and lay people; 300 questionnaires were distributed. Results: The response rate was 88.2% for orthodontists, 51.8% for general dentists, and 60.6% for lay people. The results demonstrated threshold levels of noticeable difference between the varying levels of discrepancy. A maxillary midline deviation of 4 mm was necessary before orthodontists rated it significantly less esthetic than the others. However, general dentists and lay people were unable to detect even a 4‐mm midline deviation. All three groups were able to distinguish a 2‐mm discrepancy in incisor crown angulation. An incisal plane cant of 1 mm as well as a 3‐mm narrowing in maxillary lateral incisor crown width were required by orthodontists and general dentists to be rated significantly less esthetic. Lay people were unable to detect an incisal plane asymmetry until it was 3 mm, or a lateral incisor narrowing until it reached 4 mm. Threshold levels for open gingival embrasure and gingiva‐to‐lip distance were both at 2 mm for the orthodontic group. Open gingival embrasure became detectable by the general dentists and lay people at 3 mm, whereas gingiva‐to‐lip distance was classified by these groups as noticeably unattractive at 4 mm.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 844

Metadata

Authors
KOKICH, V. O., ASUMAN KIYAK, H., & SHAPIRO, P. A.
Venue
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-11
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
311-324
ISSN
  • 1496-4155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1708-8240
OpenAlex
W1974566951
Cited by
844
References
0
FWCI
8.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing the Perception of Dentists and Lay People to Altered Dental Esthetics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x
The paper
KOKICH, V. O., ASUMAN KIYAK, H., & SHAPIRO, P. A. (1999). Comparing the Perception of Dentists and Lay People to Altered Dental Esthetics. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.