OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of cheek volume on facial esthetics judged by orthodontists and non-specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 25-year-old female's natural and smiling face was captured by 3D stereophotogrammetry. Cheek volume of the 3D image was altered to different degrees three-dimensionally. For the natural and smiling face, seven groups of facial images were created: decreased grade I/II/III, increased grade I/II/III, and the original one. Thirty orthodontists and 30 nonspecialists were invited to perform esthetic evaluation of the original and transformed images using a questionnaire. Data were calculated with one-way analysis of variance (least significant difference test) and independent samples t test. RESULTS: Compared to nonspecialists, orthodontists gave lower esthetic scores to the decreased grade III facial images (maximum deformation degree: 7.500 mm and 7.327 mm in natural and smiling face-oriented image groups, respectively). The decreased grade III facial images also received the highest age ranks. However, the increased grade III facial images received the lowest scores and highest age ranks from nonspecialists (maximum deformation degree: 6.994 mm and 5.300 mm in natural and smiling face-oriented image groups, respectively) ( P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists and nonspecialists showed different esthetic evaluation of varied cheek volume. The influence of cheek volume in orthodontic diagnostic analysis needs further consideration.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of cheek volume on facial esthetics judged by orthodontists and non-specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 25-year-old female's natural and smiling face was captured by 3D stereophotogrammetry. Cheek volume of the 3D image was altered to different degrees three-dimensionally. For the natural and smiling face, seven groups of facial images were created: decreased grade I/II/III, increased grade I/II/III, and the original one. Thirty orthodontists and 30 nonspecialists were invited to perform esthetic evaluation of the original and transformed images using a questionnaire. Data were calculated with one-way analysis of variance (least significant difference test) and independent samples t test. RESULTS: Compared to nonspecialists, orthodontists gave lower esthetic scores to the decreased grade III facial images (maximum deformation degree: 7.500 mm and 7.327 mm in natural and smiling face-oriented image groups, respectively). The decreased grade III facial images also received the highest age ranks. However, the increased grade III facial images received the lowest scores and highest age ranks from nonspecialists (maximum deformation degree: 6.994 mm and 5.300 mm in natural and smiling face-oriented image groups, respectively) ( P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists and nonspecialists showed different esthetic evaluation of varied cheek volume. The influence of cheek volume in orthodontic diagnostic analysis needs further consideration.
Authors: Camila Pachêco-Pereira; José Roberto Pereira; Bruce D Dick; Arnaldo Perez; Carlos Flores-Mir Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Steven Liew; Woffles T L Wu; Henry H Chan; Wilson W S Ho; Hee-Jin Kim; Greg J Goodman; Peter H L Peng; John D Rogers Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.326