Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe and categorize the scores obtained by the study sample for the PIGAQ as a whole and each of its subscales; (2) compare the psychosocial impact of self-perceived gingival aesthetics shown by the results for each subscale, determining which subscale shows the greatest impact, in relation to each of the following variables: gender, age, educational level, and involvement with the dentistry profession (non-professionals/professionals). METHODS: This observational and cross-sectional study is based on in-person interviews conducted by 10 trained operators, who administered the PIGAQ and collected data on gender, age, educational level, and connections to the dental profession in an adult (18-85 years) Spanish population. The data were collected over a 6-month period in 2024 in several regions of Spain. The main research outcome was the PIGAQ questionnaire (Likert scale) comprising 20 items in four subscales: gingival self-confidence (GSC), social impact (SI), psychological impact (PI), and aesthetic concern (AC), with a total score of 0-80 points. Data were analyzed using SPSS (v.28). RESULTS: In the sample, the subscale where self-perceived gingival aesthetics showed the highest negative impact was GSC, whereas the lowest negative impact was recorded for the SI subscale (with 36.5% and 1.0% of participants' scores representing a large negative impact, respectively). Significant psychosocial engagement with their gingival aesthetics was recorded for 5% of the study population (41-80). Total PIGAQ scores were significantly (p < 0.05) higher (a greater negative psychosocial impact) in participants who were male (21.23), aged 60 or over (23.83), not involved with the dental profession (19.90) and had only completed compulsory education (25.08). A significantly higher negative impact (p < 0.05) was recorded for participants aged 60 or over in the GSC (13.13), PI (4.88), and AC (2.96) subscales than for other age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The negative psychosocial impact of self-perceived gingival aesthetics is low, with the highest impact recorded for the GSC subscale, and lower impacts experienced by participants who were female, aged under 26, had university-level education, and were involved with the dental profession. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Data are lacking on the psychological and social impacts suffered by patients who are dissatisfied with their gingival aesthetics, and how these impacts relate to sociodemographic variables. To date, no research has been published addressing this issue in the Spanish population. Only 5% of the population gained high scores on the PIGAQ, with most negative impacts related to self-confidence in their gingival aesthetics. The variable that most negatively affected PIGAQ scores was age, although this effect was limited. Particular attention should be paid to male patients over 60 years with compulsory-level education only, as this group has a greater tendency to present with psychosocial distress caused by a negative self-assessment of gingival aesthetics.