[Aesthetic Preferences of Individuals when Evaluating Photographs of Facial Profiles with Different Sagittal and Vertical Growth Patterns. A Cross-sectional Study]

Overview

Journal Rev Cient Odontol (Lima)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Feb 5

PMID 38312470

Authors

Gina Yanin Salinas Mendoza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the aesthetic preferences of individuals by observing photographs of different facial profiles with different sagittal and vertical growth patterns.

Materials And Methods: Cross-sectional study that evaluated 300 students from a private university. Edited photographs of a man and a woman were used. The maxilla being moved in a vertical direction while the mandible was moved in a sagittal direction, various combinations of the photographic profile of the two individuals were created. These movements created 9 photographic profiles for the woman and the man; for intra-observer reliability, two photo profiles of both sexes were duplicated. Chi square tests and binary logistic regression were used. P<0.05.

Results: In general, the evaluated individuals mostly preferred the type 6 profile (65.7%), followed by the type 5 profile (21.7%) (slightly convex). It was found that for every year of age that an individual increases, there is a 31% greater chance of choosing one of these profiles.

Conclusions: Both sexes prefer a straight or slightly convex profile, and as age increases, individuals prefer a straight profile.

References

Storms A, Vansant L, Shaheen E, Coucke W, Cadenas de Llano-Perula M, Jacobs R . Three-dimensional aesthetic assessment of class II patients before and after orthognathic surgery and its association with quantitative surgical changes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 46(12):1664-1671. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.002. View

Oliveira M, Silveira B, Mattos C, Marquezan M . Facial profile esthetic preferences: perception in two Brazilian states. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20(3):88-95. PMC: 4520143. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.088-095.oar. View

Kanavakis G, Halazonetis D, Katsaros C, Gkantidis N . Facial shape affects self-perceived facial attractiveness. PLoS One. 2021; 16(2):e0245557. PMC: 7857636. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245557. View

Pace M, Cioffi I, DAnto V, Valletta A, Valletta R, Amato M . Facial attractiveness of skeletal class I and class II malocclusion as perceived by laypeople, patients and clinicians. Minerva Stomatol. 2018; 67(3):77-85. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.18.04111-0. View

Naini F, Donaldson A, McDonald F, Cobourne M . Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41(7):839-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.012. View

Arnett G, Jelic J, Kim J, Cummings D, Beress A, Worley Jr C . Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116(3):239-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70234-9. View

Rezaei N, Abbasi H, Khaksar A, Golshah A . Effects of deviations in the nose and chin prominence on facial attractiveness. J Orthod. 2021; 48(2):135-143. DOI: 10.1177/1465312520981985. View

Baker A, Karpagaselvi K, Kumaraswamy J, Ranjini M, Gowher J . Role of dental pulp in age estimation: A quantitative and morphometric study. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2020; 11(2):95-102. PMC: 7006301. DOI: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_57_19. View

Tugran M, Baka Z . Esthetic evaluation of profile photographs showing various sagittal and vertical patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021; 159(3):281-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.027. View

10.

Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H . Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(5):640-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0640:FPPAVL>2.0.CO;2. View

11.

Zouloumi M, Tsiouli K, Psomiadis S, Kolokitha O, Topouzelis N, Gkantidis N . Facial esthetic outcome of functional followed by fixed orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 patients. Prog Orthod. 2019; 20(1):42. PMC: 6875534. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0294-9. View

12.

Ng D, De Silva R, Smit R, De Silva H, Farella M . Facial attractiveness of skeletal Class II patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery as perceived by people with different backgrounds. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 35(4):515-20. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs028. View

13.

Lima A, Conti A, Filho L, de Almeida Cardoso M, Almeida-Pedrin R . Influence of facial pattern in smile attractiveness regarding gingival exposure assessed by dentists and laypersons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 155(2):224-233. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.03.026. View

14.

Ackerman J, Proffit W . Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(5):327-36. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0327:STLIOT>2.3.CO;2. View

15.

Yuksel A, Iskender S, Kuitert R, Papadopoulou A, Dalci K, Darendeliler M . Differences in attractiveness comparing female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 152(4):471-476. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.01.025. View

16.

Sarul M, Antoszewska-Smith J, Park H . Self-perception of smile attractiveness as a reliable predictor of increased patient compliance with an orthodontist. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2019; 28(12):1633-1638. DOI: 10.17219/acem/110320. View

17.

Torul D, Omezli M . The influence of education and gender on the esthetic perception of facial profile. Int J Esthet Dent. 2022; 17(1):88-99. View

18.

Romsics L, Segatto A, Boa K, Becsei R, Rozsa N, Parkanyi L . Patterns of Facial Profile Preference in a Large Sample of Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(16). PMC: 8394490. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168554. View

19.

Kalin K, Iskender S, Kuitert R . Attractiveness assessment by orthodontists and laypeople judging female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021; 160(2):276-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.032. View

20.

Romani K, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik J . Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod. 1993; 63(3):175-82. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1993)063<0175:EOHAVD>2.0.CO;2. View