Short answer

When designing aesthetic outcomes, consider that both digital and conventional mock-up approaches can achieve similar aesthetic results, allowing flexibility in workflow based on other project constraints.

Field: User-Centred Design
Source: Journal of Personalized Medicine (2023)
Method: Comparative observational study
Sample: 5 patients, 3 observers
Evidence: Moderate effect

Both digital and conventional methods for creating smile mock-ups yield comparable aesthetic outcomes, with a slight preference for conventional methods in general smile appeal. This user-centred design research insight is drawn from a 2023 study published in Journal of Personalized Medicine. Using Comparative observational study with 5 patients, 3 observers, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When designing aesthetic outcomes, consider that both digital and conventional mock-up approaches can achieve similar aesthetic results, allowing flexibility in workflow based on other project constraints.

Study

User-Centred DesignRecentModerate effect

Digital vs. Conventional Smile Mock-ups: Equal Aesthetic Appeal

Both digital and conventional methods for creating smile mock-ups yield comparable aesthetic outcomes, with a slight preference for conventional methods in general smile appeal.

Journal of Personalized Medicine · 2023

Key Findings

01No significant difference in aesthetic criteria assessment between analog and digital prefigurative methods.
02Slightly higher average grades for smile criteria with the conventional (analog) method compared to the digital technique.

Application

Design takeaway

How to apply

When planning aesthetic treatments or product designs that involve visual previews, consider conducting a comparative assessment of different prefiguration methods to understand their impact on user perception.

Project actions

01When comparing design methods, ensure your assessment criteria are clearly defined and relevant to the user's experience.
02Consider the trade-offs between different methods in terms of cost, time, and user feedback.

Method & Evidence

AimTo compare the aesthetic assessment of conventional (analog wax-up) versus digital prefigurative methods for smile design mock-ups.

MethodComparative observational study

ProcedureFor each of 5 patients, both a conventional wax-up and a digital wax-up were created. Analog mock-ups were made using a silicone matrix of the wax-up, while digital mock-ups were milled from a digital design. Clinical mock-ups were photographed and assessed by 3 observers based on nine aesthetic criteria.

Sample5 patients, 3 observers

ContextDental aesthetics and prosthodontic treatment planning

Variables

IVMethod of mock-up creation (conventional vs. digital)

DVAesthetic assessment scores based on nine criteria

CVPatient, observers, number of aesthetic criteria, recording method (digital photographs)

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Direct comparison of two distinct prefiguration methods.
+Inclusion of multiple aesthetic criteria for assessment.

Limitations

The study used a small number of participants, and the observers might have had personal preferences that influenced their ratings.

Reliability & validity

The study's validity is supported by the use of multiple observers and defined criteria, but its reliability might be limited by the small sample size and potential for subjective interpretation of aesthetic qualities.

Think critically

Given the slight preference for conventional methods in this study, how might future digital advancements aim to capture that perceived advantage, or is the difference negligible in broader application?

Design Principles

"The perceived aesthetic quality of a design outcome is not solely dependent on the technological sophistication of its prefiguration method."

This finding is crucial for designers and clinicians involved in aesthetic treatments, as it suggests that the choice of prefigurative method may not significantly impact patient satisfaction with the visual outcome. Designers can explore both digital and analog workflows, focusing on the overall user experience and communication rather than solely on the technological approach.

What This Means for Your Design

Making a preview of a smile using either old-fashioned methods (like wax) or new computer methods gives about the same result for how good it looks.

How to use in your project

1.This study can inform the justification for choosing a particular prototyping method in your design project, especially if you are comparing different approaches.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

This pilot study investigated the aesthetic comparison between conventional and digital smile mock-ups, finding that both methods yielded comparable results. While the conventional method received slightly higher general aesthetic scores, the overall similarity suggests that designers can select prefiguration techniques based on factors beyond perceived aesthetic superiority, such as cost, time, and workflow integration.

Source

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Smile Design and Treatment Planning—Conventional versus Digital—A Pilot Study

journal · 2023

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about digital vs. conventional smile mock-ups: equal aesthetic appeal?: When designing aesthetic outcomes, consider that both digital and conventional mock-up approaches can achieve similar aesthetic results, allowing flexibility in workflow based on other project constraints. Evidence: Journal of Personalized Medicine (2023).
Why does "Digital vs. Conventional Smile Mock-ups: Equal Aesthetic Appeal" matter for design?: This finding is crucial for designers and clinicians involved in aesthetic treatments, as it suggests that the choice of prefigurative method may not significantly impact patient satisfaction with the visual outcome. Designers can explore both digital and analog workflows, focusing on the overall user experience and communication rather than solely on the technological approach.
How can designers apply this research?: When designing aesthetic outcomes, consider that both digital and conventional mock-up approaches can achieve similar aesthetic results, allowing flexibility in workflow based on other project constraints.
What were the main findings?: No significant difference in aesthetic criteria assessment between analog and digital prefigurative methods.. Slightly higher average grades for smile criteria with the conventional (analog) method compared to the digital technique.
What research method was used?: Comparative observational study with 5 patients, 3 observers.
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2023 journal from Journal of Personalized Medicine.
What should I do differently in my next project?: When planning aesthetic treatments or product designs that involve visual previews, consider conducting a comparative assessment of different prefiguration methods to understand their impact on user perception.
What are the limitations?: Small sample size; potential observer bias; specific aesthetic criteria used may not encompass all aspects of user perception.