Background: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the esthetic outcome using four categories of root‐coverage procedures (pedicle soft tissue grafts, non‐submerged grafts, submerged grafts, and envelope techniques) and to identify factors associated with esthetic assessment.Methods: A professional panel of three observers (two periodontists and one control) used a before–after panel scoring system to evaluate the esthetics of 162 root‐coverage surgeries. A five‐point ordinal scale was used to evaluate the overall esthetic improvement and seven variables that may be considered in the assessment.Results: The intraobserver agreement of the two trained periodontists for the overall cosmetic assessment was almost perfect (κ = 0.83), and substantial agreement was found between them (κ = 0.68). Good to excellent overall esthetic results were found by the professionals and control in >70% of the surgical procedures. Analysis of variance indicated a statistical difference between the non‐submerged grafts category and the three other surgical categories (P <10−3). Multivariate analysis showed that the degree of root coverage was not a significant predictive factor, whereas soft tissue appearance variables and the follow‐up were significantly associated with cosmetic assessment.Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that non‐submerged grafts are not recommended in cases of esthetic demand. Future root‐coverage trials, basing their justification on esthetics, should include overall qualitative evaluation as the primary variable. The follow‐up period should not be <12 months. The before–after panel scoring system is a tool that can be used to evaluate cosmetic outcomes.