## 3 Results  
A total of 807 people confirmed that they had participated in the study voluntarily, and 628 participants who answered all questions were included in the study. The gender distribution of participants based on their choice between AI-generated and manually-created smile designs is shown in Table 1.  
According to the data obtained from the sociodemographic survey questions, 330 dentists participated in the study. It was found that the majority of dentists had 0-4 years of experience (29.87%), while dentists with 25 or more years of experience made up only 4.87% of this group. The majority of the dentists who participated in the survey did not have a specialty in any field (34.42%). The percentage of participants according to their area of expertise was as follows: prosthodontists (26.95%), orthodontists (10.06%), oral and maxillofacial surgeons (7.79%), endodontists (7.47%), restorative dentisty specialists (4.22%), periodontitis (3.90%), pedodontists (2.92%), and oral and maxillofacial radiologists (2.27%). It was observed that 47.95% of laypeople and 59.06% of dentistry students who participated in the study stated that they had knowledge about esthetic smile design. The data were collected from a total of 149 students, 103 of whom were female (70.55%) and 46 of whom were male (29.45%). Of the 149 students, 113 had received preclinical education (18.12% in the 1 st grade, 30.87% in the 2 nd grade, and 26.85% in the 3 rd grade), and 36 had practiced on patients (18.79% in the 4 th grade and 5.37% in the 5 th grade). For Cases 1, 2, and 3, both dentists who used and did not use a smile design program preferred the manually-created smile design over the AI-generated smile design (preference percentages for Cases 1, 2, and 3 were 82.35%, 73.53%, and 64.71%, respectively, for those who had used a smile design program, and 79.56%, 72.63%, and 53.65%, respectively, for those who had not). For Case 4, dentists who used a smile design program preferred the manually-created smile design (55.88%), while those who did not use a smile design program preferred the AI-generated smile design (55.84%). There was no significant difference between the two groups of dentists for all of the cases (\(p>0.05\)). The chi-square test was used to evaluate the difference in esthetic preference for AI-generated or manually-created smile designs between different occupational groups. The results showed a significant difference in esthetic perception between the groups for Cases 1, 2, and 3 (\(p=0.002\), \(p=0.025\), and \(p=0.003\), respectively), but not for Case 4 (\(p=0.284\)). A post-hoc test was conducted on the groups where a significant difference was found, and it was determined that there was a significant difference between dentists and dental \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Case** & **Gender** & **Manual (\%)** & **AI (\%)** & \(p\) \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**1**} & Female & 71.9 & 28.1 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.359} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Male & 75.2 & 24.8 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**2**} & Female & 67.2 & 32.8 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.464} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Male & 70 & 30 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**3**} & Female & 44.6 & 55.4 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.007 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Male & 55.7 & 44.3 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**4**} & Female & 44.6 & 55.4 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.611} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Male & 46.7 & 53.3 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The chi-square test (\({}^{\circ}\)\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for Manual and AI mode selections by gender. students (\(p=0.001\)) and between dentists and laypeople (\(p=0.001\)) for Case 1, only between dentists and dental students (\(p=0.003\)) for Case 2, and only between dentists and laypeople (\(p=0.001\)) for Case 3. In general, dentists preferred the manually created smile design in Cases 1, 2, and 3 (79.87%, 72.72%, and 54.87%, respectively) (Figure 3).