Esthetic perception of facial profile contour in patients with different facial profiles

Suphatheerawatr, Thanakrit; Chamnannidiadha, Niramol

doi:10.1016/j.ejwf.2019.04.002

Cited by 10 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding suggests that the protrusion of the chin contributes to camouflaging mandibular retraction and adds to the masculine features in males. These results agree with the findings of Suphatheerawatr and Chamnannidiadha, which indicate that the straight profile and the slightly convex profile in males were perceived as the most attractive among the modified profiles [52]. Moreover, our results agree with Tugran et al, who found that the most attractive male profile tended to be an ideal slightly convex to straight profile [53].…”

Section: Profile Variablessupporting

confidence: 93%

Do the Most Attractive Faces of Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Differ From Those With the Least Attractive Faces in Terms of Angular and Proportional Measurements Assessed on Frontal and Lateral Photographs?

Mortada

Burhan

Hajeer

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study investigated the facial angles and proportions affecting facial aesthetics in patients with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion between those labeled the most attractive and least attractive in each gender. Methodology The study sample included pretreatment extraoral photographs of 60 patients (30 males and 30 females) with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion according to the ANB angle aged between 18 and 21 years. A panel of 240 laypersons (aged 20-25 years; the average age of 22.5 ± 0.37 years; 120 males and 120 females) scored the aesthetic evaluation of photographs using the visual analog scale (VAS). Two groups were created according to the mean aesthetic scores of each photograph, namely, the most attractive group with the highest aesthetic scores, and the least attractive group with the least aesthetic scores. A total of 12 patients in each group were selected. Subsequently, their angular and proportional measurements on the frontal and lateral photographs were calculated. Independent-sample t-tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in these measurements between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in frontal variables between the most attractive and least attractive groups in each gender. The angle NPog-FH was significantly greater in the most attractive males than in the least attractive males, while there was no significant difference between the most attractive and least attractive females regarding any of the profile variables. Conclusions The most attractive females with class II division 1 were similar to the least attractive on evaluating the frontal and profile variables. In contrast, the most attractive males with class II division 1 malocclusion had more protrusion in the chin than the least attractive male patients, with no differences in other profile and frontal variables. These findings suggest considering the chin position during the diagnosis and treatment planning of class II division 1 malocclusion patients.

show abstract

Section: Profile Variablessupporting

confidence: 93%

Do the Most Attractive Faces of Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Differ From Those With the Least Attractive Faces in Terms of Angular and Proportional Measurements Assessed on Frontal and Lateral Photographs?

Mortada

Burhan

Hajeer

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were differences in the outcomes of the least attractive profile; Image A with the largest NLA (17° FCA and 115° NLA) was the least attractive profile for age groups 12-15 and 44-54 years while Image D (17° FCA and 91° NLA) was the least attractive profile for the age group 22-32 years. These findings are supported by Suphatheerawatr and Chamnannidiadha [23] study. Their report found that assessors preferred a normal (9° FCA) or slightly convex profile with a slightly retrognathic mandible (13° FCA) and an extremely concave profile with the extremely prognathic mandible (−11° FCA) was the least preferred profile.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Age-related perceptions of laypeople on Class II facial profile alterations

Tipyanggul

Changsiripun

Chamnannidiadha

2023

APOS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The treatment plan for young patients with skeletal abnormalities is often selected by their parents. However, the treatment outcome should correspond with the patient’s preference to reduce the treatment need in the future. This study aimed to investigate the influence of post-treatment facial profiles in a skeletal Class II female subject on esthetic perceptions by laypeople of different age groups. Material and Methods: Seven digitally adjusted profile images of predetermined nasolabial angle (NLA) and facial contour angle (FCA) were obtained from a female with skeletal Class II. These profile images were evaluated by 180 laypeople and were stratified according to three age groups (12–15, 22–32, and 44–54 years) using a visual analog scale and ranking order. Results: The slightly convex profile with normal NLA (11° FCA and 91° NLA) was the most preferred by all age groups. The convex profile with the largest NLA (17° FCA and 115° NLA) was the least preferred by age group 12–15 and 44–54 years and the convex profile with normal NLA (17° FCA and 91° NLA) was the least preferred by age group 22–32 years. Sex was found to be significantly related to the rating score with females rated higher scores. Conclusion: The most attractive profile for all three age groups was a mandibular advancement-simulating profile. The least attractive profile for age groups 12–15 and 44–54 years was a most camouflage-simulating profile, while the least attractive profile for age group 22–32 years was an untreated most pronounced Class II profile.

show abstract

“…Mandibular retrusion was generally preferred over mandibular protrusion. In addition, Suphatheerawatr and Chamnannidiadha 29 modified the facial contour angles and evaluated the influence of the facial profile on perceptions of attractiveness. They found that a normal or slightly convex profile was the most attractive among Asian individuals and the concave profile the least attractive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Perspectives of Orthodontists and Laypersons About the Effect of Orthodontic Treatment on Facial Aesthetics of Young Turkish Patients

Fidancioglu¹,

Malkoç²,

Güler

2021

Journal of Advanced Oral Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare the perspective of orthodontists and laypersons on the effects of orthodontic treatment on facial aesthetics in young Classes I, II, and III Turkish patients. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 60 patients (30 males and 30 females, 9 to 17 years of age) was included using randomization in strata and then divided equally ( n = 15) into four groups according to the Angle classification. Photographs during frontal and lateral resting and also smiling were obtained from each patient before and after orthodontic treatment. A panel consisting 50 laypersons and 50 orthodontists was invited for the evaluation of the initial and final photos by using the visual analogue scale and a five-point scale to determine similarities and differences of their perspectives in the effects of orthodontic treatment on facial aesthetics. The data were analyzed by independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson’s correlation test. Results: The evaluation of facial aesthetics and treatment changes were not affected by the age and gender of the panel members ( P <.05). Angle Class III patients were given lower scores by both orthodontists ( P < .001) and laypersons ( P < .05), but no significant differences were found between any of other classes ( P >.05). Orthodontists reported greater improvement for Class III than in Class II Division 1 ( P < .05) however laypersons did not notice the changes after orthodontic treatment for any of Angle classes ( P >.05). Conclusion: Class III patients received lower scores for aesthetics from both panels. Laypersons may not be concerned about the effects of orthodontic treatment on facial aesthetics in patients with any Angle class. Orthodontists have seen more facial aesthetic changes after orthodontic treatment in Class III patients.

show abstract

Esthetic perception of facial profile contour in patients with different facial profiles

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Do the Most Attractive Faces of Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Differ From Those With the Least Attractive Faces in Terms of Angular and Proportional Measurements Assessed on Frontal and Lateral Photographs?

Do the Most Attractive Faces of Patients With Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Differ From Those With the Least Attractive Faces in Terms of Angular and Proportional Measurements Assessed on Frontal and Lateral Photographs?

Age-related perceptions of laypeople on Class II facial profile alterations

Evaluation of the Perspectives of Orthodontists and Laypersons About the Effect of Orthodontic Treatment on Facial Aesthetics of Young Turkish Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About