Effect of posterior gingival display on smile esthetic perception of laypeople– A photographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of study were: 1.To evaluate the effect of posterior gingival display on esthetics of smile 2.To compare male and female smiles for posterior height of smile. The study was conducted on 60 subjects (30 males and 30 females) of age 18-25 years. Frontal facial photographs with posed smile of all subjects were taken by using a digital camera and rated on a visual analog scale by 30 evaluators. Photographs were analyzed for different types of posterior height of smile. 56.6% subjects had average posterior height of smile and 41.7% subjects had high posterior height of smile and low posterior height of smile was found in 1.7% subjects. Comparison of male and female smiles showed no statistical significant difference. According to visual analog scale evaluation, only 33.3% of very good smiles had average posterior height of smile and 50% had high posterior height of smile, but this difference was not significant statistically. No significant difference in male and female smiles regarding posterior height of smile. Also smile esthetics was not influenced by posterior gingival display on smiling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".