OBJECTIVE: The aim was a quantitative evaluation of how the severity of lower facial profile convexity influences perceived attractiveness. STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was a quantitative evaluation of how the severity of lower facial profile convexity influences perceived attractiveness. STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: M M Pithon; D Andrade; I Fernandes; J Mendes; K Nunes; L Michele; A V Ribeiro; R da Silva Coqueiro Journal: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent Date: 2014-02
Authors: Ira Sierwald; Mike T John; Oliver Schierz; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Daniel R Reissmann Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.938
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
Authors: Eduardo Espinar-Escalona; Maria B Ruiz-Navarro; José M Barrera-Mora; José M Llamas-Carreras; Andreu Puigdollers-Pérez; Jorge Ayala-Puente Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2013-12-01