Seyed Mohammad Mousavi1, Parinaz Saeidi Ghorani2, Arash Deilamani3, Vahid Rakhshan4,5. 1. Orthodontics Department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 2. , Ahvaz, Iran. 3. Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Science, Ahvaz, Iran. 4. Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran. vahid.rakhshan@gmail.com. 5. Department of Dental Anatomy, Dental Faculty, Azad University, Tehran, Iran. vahid.rakhshan@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are few, controversial, and limited studies on factors associated with the perception of profile beauty. Moreover, no study has ever assessed the role of laterality in esthetic judgment. Hence, this clinical trial was conducted. METHODS: Photographs of 6 patients (3 women) with normal lip position (Ricketts norm = 0 mm) and facial convexity (Legan-Burstone norm = 12°) were digitally manipulated to create two series of 9 gradient images each, with convexity changes of 2° and anteroposterior lip modifications of 1 mm. Half of profiles were flipped horizontally. Laypeople (n = 35), orthodontists (n = 19), and maxillofacial surgeons (n = 10) selected the esthetically acceptable images (6912 esthetic evaluations [2 parameters × 6 sets × 9 images × 64 judges]). Effects of photogrammetric stimuli and other factors on judges' zone of esthetical acceptability (ZA) and its midrange were assessed statistically (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Orthodontists and surgeons had respectively the broadest and narrowest ZAs (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Mean midranges of surgeons, orthodontists, and laypeople were respectively 0.27 ± 1.35, 0.56 ± 1.46, and 0.41 ± 1.77 mm for males' lower lips (p = 0.710, ANOVA); 0.27 ± 1.10, - 0.44 ± 0.91, and 0.03 ± 1.56 mm for females' lower lips (p = 0.034); 10.40 ± 3.17°, 11.09 ± 2.86°, and 11.57 ± 3.84° for men's profile convexity (p = 0.246); 10.27 ± 3.20°, 11.05 ± 1.87°, and 11.13 ± 3.26° for women's profile convexity (p = 0.346). Judges' gender did not affect their esthetic perception (p > 0.1). When patients' left side of face was visible, judges' esthetic preference parameters shifted towards a less convex profile and a narrower ZA (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Slightly protruded lips (for men) and slightly less convex profiles (for men/women) might be favored by all groups. Women's esthetic lip positions might differ among groups. Judges' gender might not be a determinant. Subjects' face side can influence judges' esthetic perception of facial convexity.
INTRODUCTION: There are few, controversial, and limited studies on factors associated with the perception of profile beauty. Moreover, no study has ever assessed the role of laterality in esthetic judgment. Hence, this clinical trial was conducted. METHODS: Photographs of 6 patients (3 women) with normal lip position (Ricketts norm = 0 mm) and facial convexity (Legan-Burstone norm = 12°) were digitally manipulated to create two series of 9 gradient images each, with convexity changes of 2° and anteroposterior lip modifications of 1 mm. Half of profiles were flipped horizontally. Laypeople (n = 35), orthodontists (n = 19), and maxillofacial surgeons (n = 10) selected the esthetically acceptable images (6912 esthetic evaluations [2 parameters × 6 sets × 9 images × 64 judges]). Effects of photogrammetric stimuli and other factors on judges' zone of esthetical acceptability (ZA) and its midrange were assessed statistically (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Orthodontists and surgeons had respectively the broadest and narrowest ZAs (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Mean midranges of surgeons, orthodontists, and laypeople were respectively 0.27 ± 1.35, 0.56 ± 1.46, and 0.41 ± 1.77 mm for males' lower lips (p = 0.710, ANOVA); 0.27 ± 1.10, - 0.44 ± 0.91, and 0.03 ± 1.56 mm for females' lower lips (p = 0.034); 10.40 ± 3.17°, 11.09 ± 2.86°, and 11.57 ± 3.84° for men's profile convexity (p = 0.246); 10.27 ± 3.20°, 11.05 ± 1.87°, and 11.13 ± 3.26° for women's profile convexity (p = 0.346). Judges' gender did not affect their esthetic perception (p > 0.1). When patients' left side of face was visible, judges' esthetic preference parameters shifted towards a less convex profile and a narrower ZA (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Slightly protruded lips (for men) and slightly less convex profiles (for men/women) might be favored by all groups. Women's esthetic lip positions might differ among groups. Judges' gender might not be a determinant. Subjects' face side can influence judges' esthetic perception of facial convexity.
Authors: Javonne McKoy-White; Carla A Evans; Grace Viana; Nina K Anderson; Donald B Giddon Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich; Florian Kötter; Florian Peters; Kristian Kniha; Sachin Chhatwani; Gholamreza Danesh; Frank Hölzle; Ali Modabber Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.151