BACKGROUND: Before planning orthodontic treatment, it is necessary to understand societal preferences for facial esthetics. The anteroposterior (AP) position of the maxillary incisors affects the appearance of the soft tissue profile and can be manipulated by orthodontic techniques. To improve the ability to predict the most suitable maxillary incisor position, numerous cephalometric and profilometric measurements have been suggested. Among them are the Six Elements to Orofacial Harmony proposed by L. F. Andrews, whereby forehead angulation is used to dictate maxillary incisor sagittal position. Our aim was to evaluate differences in preference for the AP position of the maxillary incisor between orthodontic and lay panels. METHODS: A smiling profile photograph was taken of a female subject who best fit the chosen soft tissue normative values and whose maxillary incisors were in an Element II position. The photograph was manipulated to simulate maxillary protrusion and retrusion at 1-mm increments to a maximum of +/-4 mm. Panels of orthodontists and nonorthodontists scored the attractiveness of the photographic variations according to a 100-mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The 4-mm retrusive photograph was significantly less desirable than all others, which suggests that, from an esthetic standpoint, it is preferable to either leave a normally protrusive maxillary dentition where it is or advance rather than retract the maxillary anterior teeth. Orthodontic training did not significantly affect the magnitude of the ratings or pattern of preference in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: Andrews' Element II provides an additional useful method to evaluate attractiveness relative to the maxillary incisor position.
BACKGROUND: Before planning orthodontic treatment, it is necessary to understand societal preferences for facial esthetics. The anteroposterior (AP) position of the maxillary incisors affects the appearance of the soft tissue profile and can be manipulated by orthodontic techniques. To improve the ability to predict the most suitable maxillary incisor position, numerous cephalometric and profilometric measurements have been suggested. Among them are the Six Elements to Orofacial Harmony proposed by L. F. Andrews, whereby forehead angulation is used to dictate maxillary incisor sagittal position. Our aim was to evaluate differences in preference for the AP position of the maxillary incisor between orthodontic and lay panels. METHODS: A smiling profile photograph was taken of a female subject who best fit the chosen soft tissue normative values and whose maxillary incisors were in an Element II position. The photograph was manipulated to simulate maxillary protrusion and retrusion at 1-mm increments to a maximum of +/-4 mm. Panels of orthodontists and nonorthodontists scored the attractiveness of the photographic variations according to a 100-mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The 4-mm retrusive photograph was significantly less desirable than all others, which suggests that, from an esthetic standpoint, it is preferable to either leave a normally protrusive maxillary dentition where it is or advance rather than retract the maxillary anterior teeth. Orthodontic training did not significantly affect the magnitude of the ratings or pattern of preference in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: Andrews' Element II provides an additional useful method to evaluate attractiveness relative to the maxillary incisor position.