An AI smile simulator may significantly improve patients’ overall perception of their potential smiles, according to a study recently published in the International Journal of Dentistry.
However, fewer participants appeared to be willing to pursue orthodontic treatment after viewing the smile simulation from SmileView (SV), the authors wrote.
“SV improves smile perception but has limited influence on treatment motivation without clinical guidance,” wrote the authors, led by Thomas Mourgues, PhD, of the Rey Juan Carlos University Department of Orthodontics in Madrid (Int J Dent, January 2, 2026).
This longitudinal study of 51 participants in Spain evaluated how the SV simulation affected smile aesthetic perception and motivation to pursue orthodontic treatment. Each participant had a frontal photo of their social smile taken (T0) following SV guidelines, then used the app to generate a simulated post-treatment image (T1), they wrote.
Participants first rated their initial smile on a 1 to 10 scale for overall perception, smile width, dental alignment, tooth color, gingival display, and tooth shape and then reported whether they would consider orthodontic treatment. They then rated the same variables based on the simulated image. Finally, participants again indicated their willingness to undergo orthodontic treatment, and their treatment intention was recorded.
Overall smile perception increased significantly after the SV simulation, rising from 5.84 ± 2.12 at T0 to 7.00 ± 2.61 at T1 (p = 0.038), with tooth alignment showing the largest improvement (5.63 ± 2.57 to 8.57 ± 1.67, p < 0.001). Significant gains were also seen in tooth color (5.31 ± 2.12 to 6.67 ± 2.76, p = 0.004) and tooth shape (6.18 ± 2.12 to 7.49 ± 2.52, p = 0.008), while changes in smile width and gingival display were not significant, they wrote.
Willingness to undergo orthodontic treatment declined slightly from 25 participants at T0 to 23 at T1, with 10 participants reversing their initial decision and eight changing from unwilling to willing after the simulation. Among those receptive to treatment after SV, tooth alignment (6.50 ± 1.06 to 8.88 ± 0.83, p = 0.002), tooth color (5.50 ± 0.92 to 7.63 ± 1.4, p = 0.002), and tooth shape (6.25 ± 1.16 to 9 ± 0.92, p = 0.001) improved significantly, while smile width and gingival exposure did not change significantly.
However, the study had limitations. Using subjective questionnaires to assess smile perception may have introduced bias, as responses relied on personal interpretation influenced by emotional or contextual factors, the authors added.
“Orthodontists can use this tool to strengthen patient motivation, provided it is accompanied by clear explanations about the limitations of aligner treatments,” Mourgues and colleagues wrote.
