Public Preferences for Anterior Tooth Variations: A Web‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the public's preferences for five esthetic variations, with the goal of linking preferences to demographic data such as age, gender, country of residence, and race. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using photo-editing software, five pairs of images with anterior tooth variations were put on a Web page with forms to collect demographic data and ranking of the image pairs. Opinions were solicited by sending out a large number of e-mails with a short study description and an invitation to access the Web page. The responses were tabulated and analyzed with logistic regression (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Valid responses were received from 2185 computer users in 45 countries. Because of the small number of respondents from most countries, only the responses from the United States and Canada (n = 1934) were analyzed. Variables collected were birth date, gender, race or ethnic background, and last dental visit. Analysis indicated that different variables were significant for different questions. Last dental visit and the interaction of gender and race were not significant in any of the models. Strongest preferences concerned diastema and midline shift and the weakest concerned whiteness and proportion. The largest minority view was the straight embrasures. Statistically significant differences were attributable to age, gender, and race. Females had stronger preferences in all conditions. Respondents younger than 40 years of age had stronger preferences for whiteness and against diastema, and whites strongly rejected the diastema. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides guidelines about the public's preferences concerning some commonly encountered conditions in esthetic dentistry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".