CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2017; 07(03): 033-041
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708722
Original Article

Perception of facial profile attractiveness by orthodontists and general public in Dakshina Kannada population

Azhar Mohammed
1  Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
,
Akhil Shetty
2  Reader, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
,
U.S Krishna Nayak
3  Senior Professor, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
,
Prajwal Shetty
4  Reader, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
,
Mcqueen Mendonca
5  Reader, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
,
Keerthan Shashidhar
6  Post Graduate, Department of Orthodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences.
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess and determine the perception of facial profile attractiveness by orthodontists and general public using Silhouette method. In addition, the orthodontists and the general public (laypeople) compared the facial profile components that they considered desirable for males and females

Methodology: 30 Subjects in the age group of 18-25 years who met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria's were selected from a local Dakshina Kannada Population. After examining each subject for his/her dental occlusion and facial profiles, profile photographs of the subjects were taken. These photographs were shown to Orthodontists and laypeople for their approval, and a subject with the most pleasing profile was selected. After the subject was selected, a lateral cephalogram was taken and various angular and linear measurements were recorded. Using the average values recorded, an androgynous facial Silhouette was constructed. These facial Silhouettes (30) were evaluated by 50 Orthodontists and 50 laymen from local population.

Result: Perception differences were noted between males and females or among Orthodontists and laypeople. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was reported in all series of profiles selection for most preferred and least preferred profile among Orthodontists and laypersons and between males and female profiles.

Conclusion: This study showed the perception of well balanced and imbalanced faces. In some of the variables, there was a clear contrast in preference of profiles for males and females by the Orthodontists and laypeople, while in some variables it was not. A universal standard of facial aesthetic is not applicable to diverse populations.



Publication History

Received: 28 April 2017

Accepted: 05 May 2017

Publication Date:
22 April 2020 (online)

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 
  • References

  • 1 Eser Tufekci, Arousha Jahangiri, steven J.Lindauer - Perception of Profile among Laypeople, Dental Students and Orthodontic Patients: Angle Orthod, 2008; 78(6) 983-987.
  • 2 Jackson VH. Orthodontia, 1st Edition, Philadelphia: JP Lippincott; 1904. P. 11-21.
  • 3 Jenny R.Maple, Katherine W.L.Vig, F.Michael Beck – A Comparison of Providers and consumers Perceptions of Facial-Profile attractiveness: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128:690-696.
  • 4 Sandra Anicy-Milosevicy, Lapter-Varga M, Slaj M. - Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30(2):135-140.
  • 5 Powel and Rayson: profile in facial esthetics; Br J Orthod 1976; 3; 207–215.
  • 6 Lines PA, Lines RR,. Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1978; 73: 648–57.
  • 7 De Smit, and L. Dermaut Soft tissue profile preference –Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;87: 67–73.
  • 8 Barrer and Ghafari. Silhouette profiles in assessment of facial esthetics – Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1985;88: 385–391.
  • 9 Mayumi Nomura: Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:87-95?
  • 10 Selin Kale Varlık: Influence of lower facial height changes on frontal facial attractiveness and perception of treatment need by lay people. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:1159–1164.
  • 11 Cox and Vanderliden; Facial harmony; Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1971; 60; 175–183.
  • 12 Spradely FL, Jacobs JD, Crowe DP., Assessment of th eantero-posterior soft-tissue contour of the lower facial third in the ideal young adult. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1981; 79: 316–325.
  • 13 Czanecki ST, Nanda Ram, Currier GF, Perception of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104: 180- 87
  • 14 Hinds and Kent. J. N.: Surgical treatment of developmental jaw deformities. SI. Louis. 1972. The Mosby Company.
  • 15 Arnett and Bergman; Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 299–312. Part I
  • 16 Stamatia Matoula; - Hans Pancherz – Skeletofacial Morphology of Attractive and Nonattractive Faces. Angle Orthod: 2005 Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 204 – 210.
  • 17 Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973; 43:34.
  • 18 Secord, P. F., and Backman, C. W.: Malocclusion and psychological factors, J. Am. Dent. Assoc.1959; 59: 931–938.