Aylin Gözde Yüksel1, Sebahat Yesim Iskender2, Reinder Kuitert2, Alexandra K Papadopoulou3, Kerem Dalci4, M Ali Darendeliler4, Oyku Dalci4. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: aylinyuksel91@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Sydney, Australia; Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 4. Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to study the perceptions of laypeople for digital alterations and the amount of nasolabial angle increase that is tolerable and how much chin-neck length increase is needed to achieve a desirable profile in Class II Division 1 women with mandibular retrognathia. METHODS: The profile image of a white woman with a Class II Division 1 mandibular rethrognatic profile was digitally modified to create 6 images: 3 with stepwise increased nasolabial angles of 113°, 121°, and 129°, and 3 with stepwise increased chin-neck distances of 51, 54, and 57 mm. These images were assessed and ranked by 155 white laypeople. RESULTS: The baseline profile was judged significantly as the least attractive. A nasolabial angle of 129° was judged as unattractive as the baseline profile. Profiles with a chin-neck length of 54 and 57 mm were equally judged as most attractive. CONCLUSIONS: The untreated (baseline) profile was found to be least esthetic, as well as the profile with the largest nasolabial angle. Nasolabial angle increases up to 121° seem to be acceptable. Profiles simulating a chin-neck length increase as produced by surgery seem to be most favored.
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to study the perceptions of laypeople for digital alterations and the amount of nasolabial angle increase that is tolerable and how much chin-neck length increase is needed to achieve a desirable profile in Class II Division 1 women with mandibular retrognathia. METHODS: The profile image of a white woman with a Class II Division 1 mandibular rethrognatic profile was digitally modified to create 6 images: 3 with stepwise increased nasolabial angles of 113°, 121°, and 129°, and 3 with stepwise increased chin-neck distances of 51, 54, and 57 mm. These images were assessed and ranked by 155 white laypeople. RESULTS: The baseline profile was judged significantly as the least attractive. A nasolabial angle of 129° was judged as unattractive as the baseline profile. Profiles with a chin-neck length of 54 and 57 mm were equally judged as most attractive. CONCLUSIONS: The untreated (baseline) profile was found to be least esthetic, as well as the profile with the largest nasolabial angle. Nasolabial angle increases up to 121° seem to be acceptable. Profiles simulating a chin-neck length increase as produced by surgery seem to be most favored.