Pleasantness of facial profile and its correlation with soft tissue cephalometric parameters: Perception of orthodontists and lay people

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study was aimed to evaluate the perception of orthodontists and of lay people about the facial profile and its possible correlation with cephalometrics parameters. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 evaluators were divided into two groups (10 orthodontists and 10 people with no relation to such area – lay people). They were asked to evaluate the photographs of 25 young males and of 25 young females, aged 17–24-year-old (mean age of 22.3 years, standard deviation 2.41 years). Photographs were randomly arranged in a photo album. The evaluators rated each photograph by means of a scale ranging from “good” to “deficient” based on the pleasantness of their facial profile. Nasolabial angle, Holdaway's H-line and the distance from H-line to nose tip were measured, in order to verify a possible relation between these soft tissue profile cephalometric measurements and the subjective ratings. Results: The kappa statistics test showed a concordance of 0.23 among orthodontists and 0.24 among lay people. Regarding the perception of orthodontists and lay people on facial profile, no significant divergence could be detected. For the correlation between cephalometric parameters and subjective ratings, there was a statistically significant correlation between the measures H and H-nose and the rating ascribed to the profile. Conclusions: It was concluded that smaller the difference from the normal cephalometric pattern, the higher was the rating given to the profile, demonstrating an important relation between subjective and objective criteria.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Salmória I, Furtado A, Rosário HD, Furtado GC, Paranhos LR. Arnett and Bergman facial analysis compared with the aesthetic perception by lay people and dentists (general practitioners and orthodontists). Biosci J 2014; 30: 297-303
  Google Scholar
• 2 Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 1983; 84: 1-28
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Almeida AB, Mazzieiro ET. Important considerations in facial estetic during orthodontic diagnostic and treatment. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop 2003; 8: 101-7
  Google Scholar
• 4 Paranhos LR, Benedicto EdeN, Ramos AL. Changes of the upper lip in orthodontic and orthopedic treatment of angle's class II malocclusion. Indian J Dent Res 2013; 24: 351-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 de Carvalho RosasGomes L, Horta KO, Gandini Jr LG, Gonçalves M, Gonçalves JR. Photographic assessment of cephalometric measurements. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 1049-58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Oliveira MT, Candemil A. Assessiment of the correlation between cephalometric and facial analysis. J Res Dent 2013; 1: 34-40
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kuyl MH, Verbeeck RM, Dermaut LR. The integumental profile: A reflection of the underlying skeletal configuration?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 597-604
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Oz AZ, Akcan CA, El H, Ciger S. Evaluation of the soft tissue treatment simulation module of a computerized cephalometric program. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 229-33
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Prasad M, Chaitanya N, Reddy KP, Talapaneni AK, Myla VB, Shetty SK. Evaluation of nasal morphology in predicting vertical and sagittal maxillary skeletal discrepancies’. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 197-204
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Suguino R, Ramos AL, Terada HH, Furquim LZ, Maeda L, Silva FilhoOG. Face analysis. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Maxilar 1996; 1: 86-107
  Google Scholar
• 11 Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 674-84
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Nanda RS, Ghosh J. Facial soft tissue harmony and growth in orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod 1995; 1: 67-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 648-57
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Lo FD, Hunter WS. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 384-91
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Okuyam CC, Martins DR. Soft tissue facial profile preference of orthodontists, laymen and artists, evaluating persons of the white, yellow and black racial groups. Ortodontia 1997; 30: 6-18
  Google Scholar
• 16 Feres R, Vasconcelos MH. Comparative study between the subjective facial analysis and the soft tissue cephalometric analysis on the orthodontic diagnosis. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2009; 14: 81-8
  Google Scholar
• 17 Maltagliati LA, Montes LA. Analysis of the factors that induce adult patients to search for orthodontic treatment. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2007; 12: 54-60
  Google Scholar
• 18 Janson G, Branco NC, Fernandes TM, Sathler R, Garib D, Lauris JR. Influence of orthodontic treatment, midline position, buccal corridor and smile arc on smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 153-61
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Morihisa O, Maltagliati LA. Comparative evaluation among facial attractiveness and subjective analysis of Facial Pattern. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2009; 14: 46-9
  Google Scholar
• 20 Altemus LA. Comparative integumental relationships. Angle Orthod 1963; 33: 217-21
  Google Scholar
• 21 Riedel RA. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1957; 43: 103-19
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 22 Reche R, Colombo VL, Verona J, Moresca CA, Moro A. Facial profile analysis in standardized photographs. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2002; 7: 37-45
  Google Scholar