DIFFERENCES AMONG THE PERCEPTIONS OF ORTHODONTISTS, PROSTHODONTISTS AND CONSERVATIVE DENTISTRY SPECIALISTS REGARDING BUCCAL CORRIDOR WIDTHS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: To find out the optimal ranges of smile attractiveness on basis of different amounts of buccal corridor widths, as judged by Pakistani orthodontists, prosthodontists and conservative dentistry specialists (CDS). METHODOLOGY: Present cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2016 to June 2017. The anterior smiling image of a female model was edited to be converted to 10 images displaying different amounts of buccal corridor width. After informed consent from the subject, different buccal corridors widths images were created at following widths: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, 14%, 16%, and 18%. This was followed by measurement of smile attractiveness of these 10 images on a visual analogue scale by 30 evaluators in three groups. Group 1 consisted of 10 CDS, group 2 consisted of 10 prosthodontists and group 3 consisted of 10 orthodontists. The data was collected and scores of smile attractiveness were presented in form of mean and standard deviation for each group. The differences in the three groups regarding perception of smile attractiveness were found out using ANOVA test and Turkey’s post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: For group 1, the highest scoring was obtained by image showing 10% buccal corridor width. In group 2, the highest score was by image showing 14% buccal corridor width, whereas in group 3, the highest scoring was showing 12% buccal corridor width. The differences found were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: Dental specialty does not affect perception of smile attractiveness. Buccal corridor width greater than 14% should be avoided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".