Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson.

Consultant Orthodontist/Honorary Senior Lecturer, Kingston and St. George's Hospitals and St. George's Medical School, London, United Kingdom.
Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology 09/2012; 114(3):303-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.07.031
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim was a quantitative evaluation of how the severity of lower facial profile convexity influences perceived attractiveness.
The lower facial profile of an idealized image was altered incrementally between 14° to -16°. Images were rated on a Likert scale by orthognathic patients, laypeople, and clinicians.
Attractiveness ratings were greater for straight profiles in relation to convex/concave, with no significant difference between convex and concave profiles. Ratings decreased by 0.23 of a level for every degree increase in the convexity angle. Class II/III patients gave significantly reduced ratings of attractiveness and had greater desire for surgery than class I.
A straight profile is perceived as most attractive and greater degrees of convexity or concavity deemed progressively less attractive, but a range of 10° to -12° may be deemed acceptable; beyond these values surgical correction is desired. Patients are most critical, and clinicians are more critical than laypeople.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to compare facial profile attractiveness changes of adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance assessed by orthodontists and laypeople. The patient sample comprised 28 adult Herbst patients. Facial profile photographs of the patients were randomly divided into two evaluation sets (before T0, after treatment T1). Ten members of the Angle Society of Europe (orthodontists) and 10 dental students in their third semester (laymen) rated both sets of photographs using Visual Analog Scales (VAS) with an interval of 1 day between the ratings. On average, both orthodontists and students found an improvement in facial profile attractiveness through Herbst appliance treatment (VAS T1-T0 = 0.3 ± 1.9 cm). However, the interindividual perception of profile attractiveness varied greatly in the two rater groups. For both time periods (T0, T1), lower VAS ratings were given by students than by orthodontists. Herbst therapy in adult patients generally improves facial profile attractiveness. Students rated facial profiles more critically than orthodontists.
    Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 05/2014; · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept of extraction in orthodontic treatment has been changed many times. Even today, criteria of extraction or nonextraction is still changing. In this study, changes depending on the evaluator's perception of treatment outcomes were compared in both extraction and nonextraction cases. In this study, premolar extracted 59 patients and nonextracted 60 patients, totally 119 patients who finished orthodontic treatment in Dankook University Dental Hospital orthodontic clinic were enrolled. Evaluation sections made up of specialists and laypersons assessed soft tissue traced from lateral cephalometric radiographs with visual analogue scale before and after the treatment. And the results were statistically analyzed. Thus, the conclusions drawn are as follows: 1. Average score is 5.76 in extraction, which is larger than 5.28 of nonextraction case. Improvement of facial profile was more favorably accepted in extraction case. 2. 5.875 in the group of specialists were higher evaluation than 5.165 in the group of layperson. 3. Specialists gave significantly higher ratings in the extraction than nonextraction. 4. A higher rating in extraction case of the layperson group has no significant difference with nonextraction case. 5. Nonextraction patients were given higher ratings from specialist group. 6. A higher rating of specialist group in extraction case has no significant difference with layperson group.
    Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science. 06/2013; 29(2).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To validate the effectiveness of the original standards of True Vertical (TV) Subnasal Line in orthognatic surgery planning. The present study evaluates the changes occurring in patients with skeletal Class II alterations programmed for orthognathic surgery with a view to improving their facial profile. We showed a series of black profiles (composed by a first control group of subjects with normal occlusion, and another two additional groups comprised patients before -Group 2- and after orthognatic surgical correction of Class II malocclusion -Group 3-) for three groups of observers (orthodontists, surgeons and laypeople). The facial images became black silhouettes in order to determine a series of parameters (including aesthetic assessment) by means of the observers. Their observation were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. The sample was composed of 52 profile's subjects who were tested for a total of 72 observers. Aesthetic assessment yielded mean scores of 2.57, 1.67 and 2.46 for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) between group 1 versus group 2. There were no significant differences in terms of observer assessment of aesthetics, with the exception of a wider perception range among the orthodontists. Regarding the studied profile measures, significant differences were recorded for point B' and Pg' (p<0.02) between groups 2 and 3 (i.e., pre- versus post-surgery). The results of our study suggest the subnasale vertical and sagittal measures of the lower third of the face are decisive in facial aesthetics, and therefore also for the planning of orthognathic surgery. Consequently, these aesthetic parameters can be used as an objective tool for the planning of orthodontic treatment. Key words:Facial profile, Class II, orthognathic surgery, cephalometric analysis, facial soft tissue, subnasale vertical.
    Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 12/2013; 5(5):e231-8.