Table 2. Perception of evaluators as regards the best photography.

Figures	Dental surgeons	Dental students	Lay persons	p-value
Fig. 1*
a o	48 (96.0%)	42 (84.0%)	16 (35.6%)	< 0.001
b AR, GC	2 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)	18 (40.0%)
c ARL, GC	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.0%)	4 (8.9%)
d AL, GC	0 (0.0%)	5 (10.0%)	7 (15.6%)
Fig. 2*
a o	49 (98.0%)	45 (90.0%)	33 (70.2%)	<0.001
e AR, B, GC, R	1 (2.0%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (21.3%)
f ARL, B, GC, R	0 (0.0%)	4 (8.0%)	2 (4.3%)
g AL, B, GC, R	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.3%)
Fig. 3*
a o	49 (98.0%)	42 (84.0%)	36 (73.5%)	0.005
h AR, R	1 (2.0%)	3 (6.0%)	9 (18.4%)
i ARL, R	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.0%)	3 (6.1%)
j AL, R	0 (0.0%)	3 (6.0%)	1 (2.0%)
Fig. 4*
a o	48 (96.0%)	44 (88.0%)	34 (69.4%)	< 0.001
k AR, GC, R	1 (2.0%)	4 (8.0%)	14 (28.6%)
l ARL, GC, R	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0.0%)
m AL, GC, R	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)
Fig. 5*
a o	48 (96.0%)	44 (88.0%)	37 (75.5%)	0.031
n AR, B, GC	1 (2.0%)	3 (6.0%)	9 (18.4%)
o ARL, B, GC	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.1%)
p AL, B, GC	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)
Fig. 6*
a o	48 (96.0%)	40 (81.6%)	26 (55.3%)	< 0.001
q AR, B, R	1 (2.0%)	6 (12.2%)	13 (27.7%)
r ARL, B, R	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.1%)	7 (14.9%)
s AL, B, R	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.1%)
Fig. 7*
a o	49 (98.0%)	41 (82.0%)	26 (54.2%)	< 0.001
t AR	0 (0.0%)	4 (8.0%)	11 (22.9%)
u ARL	1 (2.0%)	4 (8.0%)	7 (14.6%)
v AL	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.0%)	4 (8.3%)
Fig. 8*
a o	49 (98.0%)	37 (80.4%)	25 (52.1%)	< 0.001
w AR, B	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.3%)	11 (22.9%)
x ARL, B	1 (2.0%)	4 (8.7%)	8 (16.7%)
y AL, B	0 (0.0%)	3 (6.5%)	4 (8.3%)

*The participants who did not note any differences in the photographs were not included. ^O Original image. ^AR Absence of unit 12.

^ARL Absence of units 12 and 22. ^AL Absence of unit 22. ^B Bleaching. ^GC Gingival Contour. ^R Reanatomization.