| Authors & Year | Title and Journal | Aims | Sample | N | Instruments Used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolfart et al. 2006 [21] | General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance (Int J Prosthodont) | To correlate the general well-being of patients with judgment about the dental appearance | 19–79 yr old with natural dentition, fixed partial dentures, removable partial dentures, dental esthetic problems | 80 | Dental appearance satisfaction questionnaire |
| Samorodnitzky-Naveh et al. 2007 [22] | Patients’ satisfaction with dental esthetics (J Am Dent Assoc) | To evaluate factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and with the results of esthetic treatment | NA | 407 | Dental satisfaction questionnaire |
| Tortopidis et al. 2007 [17] |
Evaluation of the relationship between subjects’ perception and professional assessment of esthetic treatment needs (J Esthet Restor Dent) | To examine the relationship between Greek subjects’ perception and professional assessment regarding the need for esthetic dental treatment | 17–65 yr old (a military dental clinic in Tel Aviv, Israel) | 132 | Professional assessment questionnaire of esthetic treatment needs. Self-evaluation questionnaire of esthetic treatment need |
| Mehl et al. 2009 [23] | Does the Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaires measure dental appearance? (Int J Prosthodont) | To evaluate whether there is a need to develop a new questionnaire measuring dental appearance or if this is already covered by the OHIP-49 | 49–69 yr old | 30 | QDA, OHIP-49, OHIP-esthetic |
| Larrson et al. 2010 [1] | Development of an Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) in prosthodontic patients (Int J Prosthodont) | To develop a self-reported orofacial esthetics instrument, OES, addressing prosthodontics concerns | Prosthodontics patients at the Center of Oral Rehabilitation Linkoping, Sweden | 119 | OES |
| Larsson et al. 2010 [24] | Reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in Prosthodontic Patients (Int J Prosthodont) | To evaluate the reliability and validity of OES | 22-70 yr old (esthetic & functional) & healthy control groups (esthetic control & functional control) | 119 | OES |
| Persic et al.2011 [25] | Psychometric Properties of the Croatian version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale and suggestion for modification (Int J Prosthodont) | To develop and test the psychometric properties of OES Croatian version | Subjects were divided into four groups that included two patient groups (esthetic normal but functionally impaired & esthetically impaired) & healthy control groups (esthetically normal control & esthetically impaired control) | 126 | OES |
| Mehl et al. 2011 [11] | Patients’ and dentist’s perception of dental appearance (Clin Oral Investig) | To compare self- & professional perception of complex oral rehabilitation. To evaluate the experience, age & gender-related differences in professional judgment | 63±9 years old. Patients had been treated in a student course at the Department of Prosthodontics, Germany | 16 patients, 42 dentists |
QDA |
| Mon Tin-Oo et al.2011 [26] | Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance & treatments they desire to improve esthetics (BMC Oral Health) | To identify patient satisfaction with general dental appearance, cosmetic elements & desired treatments | Patients newly registered at HUSM Dental Clinic, Malaysia. Adults >18 years old who had not received any dental treatment within the last six month | 243 | Patients’ satisfaction with current dental appearance & desired esthetic treatment needs questionnaire |
| John et al. 2012 [27] | Validation of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in the general population (Health Qual Life Outcomes) | To assess how patients perceive their dental & facial, and to investigate dimensionality, reliability, & validity of OES scores in the Swedish adults | 32–66 years old. Swedish-speaking subjects, 18 years old or older | 1159 | OES |
| Al-Zarea 2013 [28] | Satisfaction with the appearance and the desired treatment to improve esthetics | To investigate participant satisfaction with the appearance of their teeth and the desired treatments to improve dental appearance | Participants above 18 years old had no medical disease or condition that might affect their ability to understand and score the questionnaire, and received no dental treatment for the last 6 months. | 220 | Patients’ satisfaction with current dental appearance & desired esthetic treatment needs questionnaire |
| Zhao et al. 2013 [29] | Development of the Chinese version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (J Oral Rehabil) | To investigate the psychometric properties of OES among Chinese speaking patients | 56.2 ± 16.2-year-old prosthodontics patients at Hospital Medical University, China. Subjects were divided into four groups: Patient groups (esthetic normal but functionally impaired & esthetically impaired) & healthy control groups (esthetically normal control and esthetically impaired control) | 202 | OES |
| Ozhayat et al. 2014 [18] | Validation of the Prosthetic Esthetic Index (PEI) (Clin Oral Investig) | To validate a new comprehensive index, the Prosthetic Esthetic Index (PEI), for a professional evaluation of esthetics in prosthodontics patients | Participants were patients missing at least one tooth (3rd molar not included) & registered for oral rehabilitation at the Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen | 99 | PEI |
| Carlsson et al. 2014 [30] | Orofacial Esthetics and dental anxiety: Associations with oral and psychological health (Acta Odontol Scandinav) | To investigate self-rated orofacial esthetics in patients with dental anxiety & its relationship to psychological & oral health | 20–81 ys old patients who were referred to a dental anxiety specialized clinic, University of Gothenburg, Sweden | 152 | OES |
| Mehl et al. 2014 [31] | Perception of dental esthetic in different cultures (Int J Prosthodont) | To compare patients’ & dentists’ perceptions of dental appearance | 22–67-year-old patients at a private practice in London | 29 patients 94 dentists |
QDA |
| Danneman et al. 2014 [2] | Recognition of patient-reported impairment in oral aesthetics (J Oral Rehabil) | To investigate the degree of effective recognition by professionals of patient-estimated oral esthetic impairment & the most reliable aspects in such recognition | Patients missing at least one tooth (3rd molar not included) & registered for oral rehabilitation at the Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen | 99 | PEI, OES Oral Health Impact Profile Aesthetics (OHIP-Aes) |
| Reissmann et al. 2014 [32] | Development and validation of the German version of OES (Clin Oral Investig) | To develop a German version of OES and to assess its psychometric properties | 41-70 yr old patients recruited at the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany with or without dental treatment need. Not based on esthetic concern, only on clinical consideration | 165 | OES |
| Rotundo et al. 2015 [19] | The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI): A method to measure the esthetics of the smile. An intra & inter-rater agreement study (Euro J Oral Implantol) | To propose a method to measure the esthetics of the smile & to report its validation by means of intra & inter-rater agreement | Frontal pictures of smiles of patients from 19–61 years old | 70 patients 10 examiners |
SEI |
| Bimbashi V et al. 2015 [33] | Psychometric properties of the Albanian version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-ALB) (BMC Oral Health) | To adapt OES & test psychometric properties of the Albanian version in the Republic of Kosovo | 19–86 years old (prosthodontics patients without treatment need, with treatment need, dental students with natural teeth without treatment need | 169 | OES |
| Wetselaar P et al. 2015 [34] | Psychometric properties of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-NL) Dutch version in dental patients with & without self-reported tooth wear (J Oral Rehabil) | To test the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of OES in dental patients with & without self-reported tooth wear | Adult patients referred to the Clinic of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction because of temporomandibular disorder, dental sleep disorder & tooth wear | 583 | OES |
| Persic and Celebic 2015 [35] | Influence of different prosthodontics rehabilitation option on Oral Health-related Quality of Life, Orofacial Esthetics and Chewing Function based on patient-reported outcomes (Qual Life Res) | To assess the influence of different prosthodontics rehabilitation options on improvement of orofacial esthetics, chewing function, and oral health-related quality of life | Patients who were treated either with conventional or implant-supported dentures at the Prosthodontics Department, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb. | 263 | OHIP, OES and Chewing Function Questionnaire (CFQ) |
| Ozhayat et al. 2016 [36] | Responsiveness of the Prosthetic Esthetic Index (Clin Oral Investig) | To evaluate the responsiveness of the Prosthetic Esthetic Index (PEI) | Adult patients at the Prosthodontics Department, University of Copenhagen before & after treatment | 57 | OES & PEI |
| Alhajj et al. 2016 [37] | Development, validation and psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale: OES-Ar (BMC Oral Health) | To develop the Arabic version of the OES (OES-Ar) and to investigate its psychometric properties among Arabic-speaking populations with and without esthetic impairment. | Participant aged 18 years and older recruited from conservative and prosthodontics department at faculty of dentistry, Thamar University, and private dental clinics | 230 | OES |
| Oreški et al. 2017 [38] | Assessment of esthetic characteristic of the teeth and surrounding anatomical structure (Acta Stomatol Croat) | To determine differences between general population, dentists & prosthodontics specialists, and to determine the difference in their perception of anterior teeth anatomical variations & surrounding structures based on the gender & age of the assessor | 19–40 yr old. Participants had a permanent fully toothed dentition (excluding 3rd molars) & mostly intact upper front teeth. All respondents belonged to the Angle class I | 60 | OES |
| Aldaij et al. 2018 [39] | Patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatment desire to improve esthetics (J Oral Health Comm Dent) | To evaluate the patient's satisfaction with dental appearance and treatment desire to improve esthetics. | Adult patient (18 years and above) who attended to the department of university dental clinic of Riyadh Elm University, Saudi Arabia | 1147 | Patients’ satisfaction with current dental appearance & desired esthetic treatment need questionnaire |
| Pallares et al. 2018 [40] | Development, validity and reliability of the Orofacial Scale-Spanish version (J Prosthodont Res) | To develop a Spanish version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-Sp) and to determine psychometric properties in dental patients. | The Spanish-speaking participant from Healthpertners dental clinic (age mean± sd: 42,9± 12,3 years) | 331 | OES, OHIP |
| Reissman et al. 2019 [41] | Measuring patient’s orofacial appearance. Validity and reliability of the English-language Orofacial Esthetic Scale (JADA) | To determine the psychometric properties of the English-language version of OES-E in a population of the dental patient | 56.7±15.8-year-old English dental patients from Health Partners dental clinic in Minnesota, USA | 1784 | OES |