Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
Oral and maxillofacial surgeryAssessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
Ethical approval was sought and granted for the study (National Research Ethics Service, UK; REC reference 06/Q0806/46), and each subject in the study signed a detailed informed consent form.
Results
All the laypeople and the clinicians were skeletal class I, whereas 96% of the patients were class II or III (Table II). There was no significant difference in perceptions of attractiveness between observers with class II and III jaw relationships (P = .91) but they appeared to differ significantly from those with skeletal class I. When skeletal class was fitted on the patient group alone, no difference was detected between classes II and III (P = .86).
Discussion
The angle of profile convexity was found to have a highly significant association with ratings of attractiveness. The mean rating for attractiveness was greater for images with a straight profile compared with those with any degree of convexity or concavity; no significant differences were found between convex and concave lower facial profiles.
Ratings for attractiveness decreased for every degree increase in the facial profile convexity angle; this effect was slightly more marked for section 1.
Conclusions
- •
Convexity of the lower face is perceived as significant at 10° and concavity at −12°; between these values, the lower facial profile contour may be deemed to be within normal limits in terms of observer perception.
- •
The greater the angle of profile convexity past 10° convexity and −12° concavity, the more noticeable.
- •
From 10° of convexity and −12° of concavity, patients desire treatment.
- •
The angle of facial profile convexity has a highly significant association with ratings of attractiveness, with
References (29)
- et al.
The influence of craniofacial to standing height proportion on perceived attractiveness
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2008) - et al.
Silhouette profiles in the assessment of facial esthetics: a comparison of cases treated with various orthodontic appliances
Am J Orthod
(1985) - et al.
Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults
Am J Orthod
(1984) - et al.
Perceptions of a balanced facial profile
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1993) - et al.
Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1999) A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planningPart I
Am J Orthod
(1983)A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planningPart II
Am J Orthod
(1984)Roentgenostatics: a practical evaluation of the x-ray headplate
Am J Orthod
(1961)- et al.
Growth and prediction of the skeletal and soft-tissue profiles
Am J Orthod
(1973) Biometric correlations among organs of the facial profile: a possible solution to the present crisis in orthodontics
Am J Orthod
(1956)
A longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures and their profile characteristics, defined in relation to underlying skeletal structures
Am J Orthod
Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis
Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles
Angle Orthod
Anthropometry of the attractive North American caucasian face
Cited by (37)
Perceived treatment need in patients with different facial profiles
2020, Journal of the World Federation of OrthodontistsCitation Excerpt :Many studies reported that the PTN of clinicians differed from laypeople and the PTN of laypeople was also dissimilar from patients [7–13]. Clinicians are less tolerant of profile changes, more sensitive in their judgment of facial profiles, have a greater ability to discriminate changes in the profile, and have a tendency to indicate surgery in a greater number of cases compared with laypeople [7,9,10]. In addition, laypeople are less accurate in their perception of their own profile and less critical when assessing attractiveness based on facial profile convexity and mandibular prominence compared with patients [10,12,13].
Esthetic perception of facial profile contour in patients with different facial profiles
2019, Journal of the World Federation of OrthodontistsCitation Excerpt :Facial contour angle was used because it is significantly associated with the rating of attractiveness. As the degrees of convexity or concavity increase, the attractiveness rating decreases [1,2,4]. The participants were asked to review their own facial profiles before responding to the questionnaires to recognize their self-perception, because most people rarely see their faces in this view.
Assessing the influence of chin prominence on profile esthetics: A survey study
2018, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial SurgeryCitation Excerpt :As with all facial parameters, a normative value is available for chin prominence. In clinical evaluation, the amount of deviation from the normative value guides the process of deciding to perform surgery (Naini et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d). Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify the cut-off point from which surgery is desired in a large group of participants by detecting upper and lower limits of the chin prominence for an ideal profile, and by quantitatively evaluating the influence of sagittal chin prominence on the perception of attractiveness in males and females.
The difference between registered natural head position and estimated natural head position in three dimensions
2018, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryClinician, dental student, and orthognathic patient perception of black-and-white silhouette lateral profile dimensions of ideal chin position in a Chinese population
2018, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Male and female facial profile silhouette images11,16,22-26 were created by using Adobe Photoshop CS6 software (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA) based on norms of soft tissue measurements and proportions20 (Figure 1).