OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that lower facial height has no influence on frontal facial attractiveness and treatment need perception of lay people. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Frontal facial silhouettes of a man and a woman with normal lower facial height values (male: 81.5 mm; female: 70.5 mm) were modified by increasing and decreasing their lower facial heights in steps of 1 mm to obtain frontal images with different lower facial height alterations ranging from +6 mm to -6 mm for each sex. A panel of 100 lay people scored each silhouette's attractiveness on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and also indicated whether they would seek treatment if the image represented their own. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the VAS scores. RESULTS: Unaltered +/-1-mm and +/-2-mm silhouettes got the highest VAS scores. Scores were significantly lower (P < or = .001) as the divergence from the normal value exceeded 2 mm. Beyond +3 mm and -4 mm in females and +4 mm and -3 mm in males the difference between the scores became statistically insignificant. At +/-4 mm, more than 75% of the raters elected to have treatment. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis was rejected.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that lower facial height has no influence on frontal facial attractiveness and treatment need perception of lay people. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Frontal facial silhouettes of a man and a woman with normal lower facial height values (male: 81.5 mm; female: 70.5 mm) were modified by increasing and decreasing their lower facial heights in steps of 1 mm to obtain frontal images with different lower facial height alterations ranging from +6 mm to -6 mm for each sex. A panel of 100 lay people scored each silhouette's attractiveness on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and also indicated whether they would seek treatment if the image represented their own. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the VAS scores. RESULTS: Unaltered +/-1-mm and +/-2-mm silhouettes got the highest VAS scores. Scores were significantly lower (P < or = .001) as the divergence from the normal value exceeded 2 mm. Beyond +3 mm and -4 mm in females and +4 mm and -3 mm in males the difference between the scores became statistically insignificant. At +/-4 mm, more than 75% of the raters elected to have treatment. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis was rejected.
Authors: Jenny R Maple; Katherine W L Vig; F Michael Beck; Peter E Larsen; Shiva Shanker Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Rosemie M A Kiekens; Jaap C Maltha; Martin A van 't Hof; Huub Straatman; Anne M Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: Eur J Orthod Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Ulrich Gross; Linda Frye; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.573