PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2025; 19(02): 366-373
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788654
Original Article

A Comparison of Esthetic Preferences on Female Skeletal Class II Alterations among Laypeople of Different Facial Profiles

Wiwan Tipyanggul
1   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Chidsanu Changsiripun 
1   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Niramol Chamnannidiadha
1   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok, Thailand
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the influences of assessors' different personal profiles on the esthetic perception of Class II facial profile corrections and the agreement between profile and silhouette images.

Materials and Methods A profile photo of a female with skeletal Class II was digitally altered into three profile and three silhouette images (most pronounced Class II division 1 characteristic, more retruded upper lip position, and more protruded mandibular position). Ninety-six laypeople from three facial profile groups (straight, convex, and concave profiles) chose these images for facial attractiveness. Data were analyzed using an SPSS program. Cohen's kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients were applied to determine intraparticipant and intra-examiner reliabilities. Chi-square tests were used to test between-group preferences and the relationship of profile preference with other factors. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to test the agreement in selecting profile and silhouette images (p = 0.05).

Results All groups favored profiles with a protruded mandibular position (11-degree facial contour angle [FCA] and 91-degree nasolabial angle [NLA]). Despite facial profile differences, preference remained consistent (p = 0.649). The convex group showed a stronger inclination toward an untreated-simulating profile (17-degree FCA and 91-degree NLA). Preferences were consistent regardless of sex (p = 0.198) and education (p = 0.105). The percentage of agreement between profile and silhouette images in the total sample was 67.71% (kappa = 0.386). All groups of participants chose the more retruded upper lip position (17-degree FCA and 107-degree NLA) profile in silhouette more than in photograph.

Conclusion All groups preferred a mandibular advancement-simulating profile. Using the photographs or silhouettes to assess the esthetic preference resulted in a similar trend. However, the flatter profile was more preferred in silhouette than in photograph.

Keywords

esthetics - laypeople - photograph - silhouette - skeletal Class II

Ethics Approval Statement

This is a cross-sectional study comparing the esthetic perception of participants with different facial profiles. The Human Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University approved this research protocol under the certificate number HREC-DCU 2021-080. Individuals older than 20 years gave written consent to participate in this study. Parents or legal guardians of individuals younger than 20 years gave written consent on behalf of their child.


Consent to Participate

The study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University (HREC-DCU 2021-080). Individuals older than 20 years gave written consent to participate in this study. Parents or legal guardians of individuals younger than 20 years gave written consent on behalf of their children.


Authors' Contribution

C.C. and N.C. designed the study. W.T. collected the data. W.T., C.C., and N.C. analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. Juli 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Proffit WR, Fields HW, Larson BE, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Mosby Elsevier; Philadephia, PA: 2019: 744
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Larsen PE, Shanker S. A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128 (06) 690-696 , quiz 801
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sarver DM. Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148 (03) 380-386
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lin F, Ren M, Yao L, He Y, Guo J, Ye Q. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150 (03) 476-482
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Dimberg L, Arnrup K, Bondemark L. The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (03) 238-247
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cassidy Jr DW, Herbosa EG, Rotskoff KS, Johnston Jr LE. A comparison of surgery and orthodontics in “borderline” adults with Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104 (05) 455-470
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Scott Conley R, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in Class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod 2006; 76 (01) 59-65
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Almeida Pedrin R, Guimarães L, Almeida M, Almeida R, Ferreira F. Assessment of facial profile changes in patients treated with maxillary premolar extractions. Dental Press J Orthod 2012; 17 (05) 131-137
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Suphatheerawatr T, Chamnannidiadha N. Esthetic perception of facial profile contour in patients with different facial profiles. J World Fed Orthod 2019; 8 (03) 112-117
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 114 (03) 303-311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Al-Khafaji MQM, Althobaiti NSA, Alhassani NFM. et al. The application and efficacy of hyaluronic acid fillers for chin enhancement and retrusion correction: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes. Cureus 2023; 15 (11) e48807
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Li XR, Hong WJ, Li ZH, Luo CE, Jiang XY, Luo SK. Aesthetic concerns of chin augmentation with hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler in Chinese: a prospective, observational study. Dermatol Surg 2023; 49 (03) 242-246
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Xie Y, Zhao H, Wu W. et al. Chin augmentation and treatment of chin retrusion with a flexible hyaluronic acid filler in Asian subjects: a randomized, controlled, evaluator-blinded study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2024; 48 (05) 1030-1036
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Jarungidanan P, Sorathesn K. Acceptable facial profiles in Thai non-straight profile patients. CU Dent J 2008; 31: 235-248
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Volpato GH, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, Oltramari PVP, Freire Fernandes TM, de Almeida MR, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC. Self-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 158 (06) 840-848
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Eslami N, Omidkhoda M, Shafaee H, Mozhdehifard M. Comparison of esthetics perception and satisfaction of facial profile among male adolescents and adults with different profiles. J Orthod Sci 2016; 5 (02) 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pithon MM, Silva IS, Almeida IO. et al. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of profile esthetics between white and black evaluators. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (02) 231-238
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967; 53 (04) 262-284
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (02) 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Tsang ST, McFadden LR, Wiltshire WA, Pershad N, Baker AB. Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (01) 66-72
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Naini FB, Donaldson AN, Cobourne MT, McDonald F. Assessing the influence of mandibular prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34 (06) 738-746
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ngamjarus C, Chongsuvivatwong V, McNeil E. n4Studies: sample size calculation for an epidemiological study on a smart device. Siriraj Med J. 2016; 68: 160-170
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sorathesn K. Craniofacial norm for Thai in combined orthodontic surgical procedure [in Thai]. J Dent Assoc Thai 1988; 38 (05) 190-201
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Storms AS, Miclotte A, Grosjean L. et al. Short-term hard and soft tissue changes after mandibular advancement surgery in Class II patients: a retrospective cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 2017; 39 (05) 567-576
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Almeida RC, Cevidanes LH, Carvalho FA. et al. Soft tissue response to mandibular advancement using 3D CBCT scanning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 40 (04) 353-359
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91 (05) 385-394
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Yüksel AG, Iskender SY, Kuitert R. et al. Differences in attractiveness comparing female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 152 (04) 471-476
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft-tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 1984; 86 (01) 67-73
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Mobarak KA, Espeland L, Krogstad O, Lyberg T. Soft tissue profile changes following mandibular advancement surgery: predictability and long-term outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119 (04) 353-367
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lisboa CO, Martins MM, Ruellas ACO, Ferreira DMTP, Maia LC, Mattos CT. Soft tissue assessment before and after mandibular advancement or setback surgery using three-dimensional images: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 47 (11) 1389-1397
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Tipyanggul W, Changsiripun C, Chamnannidiadha N. Age-related perceptions of laypeople on Class II facial profile alterations. APOS Trends Orthod. 2023; 13 (01) 15-21
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Varatharaju V, Caflisch M, Soroken C, Kiliaridis S, Antonarakis GS. Does age influence self-perception of the soft-tissue profile in children?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021; 159 (03) e207-e215
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar