The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: A novel approach

  • Denize, Erin Stewart (Department of Orthodontics, St. George's Hospital and King's College London Dental Institute) ;
  • McDonald, Fraser (Department of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute) ;
  • Sherriff, Martyn (Department of Biostatistics, Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol) ;
  • Naini, Farhad B. (Department of Orthodontics, Kingston and St. George's Hospitals and St. George's Medical School)
  • Received : 2013.09.20
  • Accepted : 2014.02.11
  • Published : 2014.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the relative importance of bilabial prominence in relation to other facial profile parameters in a normal population. Methods: Profile stimulus images of 38 individuals (28 female and 10 male; ages 19-25 years) were shown to an unrelated group of first-year students (n = 42; ages 18-24 years). The images were individually viewed on a 17-inch monitor. The observers received standardized instructions before viewing. A six-question questionnaire was completed using a Likert-type scale. The responses were analyzed by ordered logistic regression to identify associations between profile characteristics and observer preferences. The Bayesian Information Criterion was used to select variables that explained observer preferences most accurately. Results: Nasal, bilabial, and chin prominences; the nasofrontal angle; and lip curls had the greatest effect on overall profile attractiveness perceptions. The lip-chin-throat angle and upper lip curl had the greatest effect on forehead prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle (particularly the lower component), and mentolabial angle had the greatest effect on nasal prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, chin prominence, and submental length had the greatest effect on lip prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle, and submental length had the greatest effect on chin prominence perceptions. Conclusions: More prominent lips, within normal limits, may be considered more attractive in the profile view. Profile parameters have a greater influence on their neighboring aesthetic units but indirectly influence related profile parameters, endorsing the importance of achieving an aesthetic balance between relative prominences of all aesthetic units of the facial profile.

Keywords

References

  1. Auger TA, Turley PK. The female soft tissue profile as presented in fashion magazines during the 1900s: a photographic analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999;14:7-18.
  2. Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:208-17. https://doi.org/10.1053/od.1998.v114.a86137
  3. Mamandras AH. Growth of lips in two dimensions: a serial cephalometric study. Am J Orthod 1984;86: 61-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90277-X
  4. Mamandras AH. Linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular lips. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:405-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90129-1
  5. Bhatia SN, Leighton BC. A manual of facial growth: a computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
  6. Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:407-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.05.007
  7. Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H, van der Linden FP, Moore AW. Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98:209-12. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0456
  8. Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.17.4.299
  9. Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:323-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0
  10. Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973;43:34-40.
  11. Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:514-25. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.109102
  12. Naini FB. Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  13. Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 1960;46:330-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90047-6
  14. Ricketts RM. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology. Angle Orthod 1972;42: 179-99.
  15. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
  16. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29:8-29.
  17. Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966;52: 804-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(66)90250-8
  18. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90144-6
  19. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod 1984;85:279-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90185-4
  20. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53:262-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X
  21. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978;36:269-77.
  22. Riedel RR. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod 1957;43:103-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(57)90220-8
  23. Bender R, Grouven U. Ordinal logistic regression in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1997;31: 546-51.
  24. Weakliem DL. A critique of the bayesian information criterion for model selection. Soc Methods Res 1999;27:359-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124199027003002

Cited by

  1. Perception and satisfaction of the face and the need for aesthetic dental treatment in the college students vol.17, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.2017.17.01.89
  2. Effects of deviations in the nose and chin prominence on facial attractiveness vol.48, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520981985