OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the usefulness of a new imaging system for comparing the morphometric bases of children's self-perception of their facial profile with the perceptions of their mothers and treating clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rather than choosing among a series of static images, a computer imaging program was developed to elicit a range of acceptable responses or tolerance for change from which a midpoint of acceptability was derived. Using the method of Giddon et al, three profile features (upper and lower lips and mandible) from standardized images of 24 patients aged 8- 15 years were distorted and presented to patients, parents, and clinicians in random order as slowly moving images (four frames per second) from retrusive and protrusive extremes. Subjects clicked the mouse when the image became acceptable and released it when it was no longer acceptable. Subjects responded similarly to a neutral facial profile. RESULTS: Patients and their mothers overestimated the protrusiveness of the mandible of the actual pretreatment profile. Consistent with related studies, mothers had a smaller tolerance for change in the soft tissue profile than the children or clinicians. The magnitudes of the children's self-preference and preferred change in a neutral face were also significantly correlated. Both patients and mothers preferred a more protrusive profile than that of the actual or neutral face for the patient and neutral face. CONCLUSION: Imaging software can be used with children to compare their preferences with those of parents and clinicians to facilitate treatment planning and patient satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the usefulness of a new imaging system for comparing the morphometric bases of children's self-perception of their facial profile with the perceptions of their mothers and treating clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rather than choosing among a series of static images, a computer imaging program was developed to elicit a range of acceptable responses or tolerance for change from which a midpoint of acceptability was derived. Using the method of Giddon et al, three profile features (upper and lower lips and mandible) from standardized images of 24 patients aged 8- 15 years were distorted and presented to patients, parents, and clinicians in random order as slowly moving images (four frames per second) from retrusive and protrusive extremes. Subjects clicked the mouse when the image became acceptable and released it when it was no longer acceptable. Subjects responded similarly to a neutral facial profile. RESULTS:Patients and their mothers overestimated the protrusiveness of the mandible of the actual pretreatment profile. Consistent with related studies, mothers had a smaller tolerance for change in the soft tissue profile than the children or clinicians. The magnitudes of the children's self-preference and preferred change in a neutral face were also significantly correlated. Both patients and mothers preferred a more protrusive profile than that of the actual or neutral face for the patient and neutral face. CONCLUSION: Imaging software can be used with children to compare their preferences with those of parents and clinicians to facilitate treatment planning and patient satisfaction.