MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034755207 · doi:10.1111/jopr.13213

Tooth Shade Preferences among the General Public

2020· article· en· W3034755207 on OpenAlexaffabout
Balqees Almufleh, Elham Emami, Aliaa Al‐Khateeb, Stefano Del Monte, Faleh Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Erosion and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHueDentistryOrthodonticsMedicineObserver (physics)Logistic regressionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To identify laypersons' most preferred tooth shade as a function of observer and patient factors, namely patients' skin shade and observers' socio-demographics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two online surveys using computer-designed perioral images with different shades of the skin and teeth were distributed to participants in Montreal (Canada) and San Francisco (USA). The first survey (n = 120) was designed to assess public preferences of tooth shade value, hue and chroma as a function of the skin color of the perioral image (model), and the demographic characteristics of the observer. The first survey included 6 sets of 9 identical perioral images. A different skin shade (from very dark to very light) was used for each set of images, and each set of images presented teeth with different tooth shades which included three different levels of value (2M1, 3M1, 4M1), hue (3L1.5, 3M1, 3R1.5), and chroma (3M1, 3M2, 3M3) of the Vita 3D Master shade guide. Participants were asked to choose their preferred image for each category (value, hue, chroma) within each set of skin shades. A second survey was performed to pinpoint the tooth shade that is preferred the most by the general public. In this survey, images with four tooth shades (1M1, 2M1, 3M1, 4M1) and 6 skin shades were distributed (n = 70). Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors of preferred tooth shades. RESULTS: Most of the participants preferred teeth with the highest value (54%), a neutral hue (59%) and the lowest chroma (89%). About 75% of the participants preferred 1M1 the lightest tooth shade over other shades regardless of their demographics or skin color of the model. Among the observer-related variable, age was the most significant predictor of people preferred tooth shade (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: This study showed that there are common preferences in terms of tooth shade value, hue and chroma among participants regardless of demographic variables and facial skin shades. This data could guide dentists for tooth shade selection in the clinical practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ProsthodonticsSame topicDental Erosion and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207