Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 4/2019

01-12-2019 | Original Article

Effects of laterality on esthetic preferences of orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, and laypeople regarding the lip position and facial convexity: a psychometric clinical trial

Authors: Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, Parinaz Saeidi Ghorani, Arash Deilamani, Vahid Rakhshan

Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

There are few, controversial, and limited studies on factors associated with the perception of profile beauty. Moreover, no study has ever assessed the role of laterality in esthetic judgment. Hence, this clinical trial was conducted.

Methods

Photographs of 6 patients (3 women) with normal lip position (Ricketts norm = 0 mm) and facial convexity (Legan-Burstone norm = 12°) were digitally manipulated to create two series of 9 gradient images each, with convexity changes of 2° and anteroposterior lip modifications of 1 mm. Half of profiles were flipped horizontally. Laypeople (n = 35), orthodontists (n = 19), and maxillofacial surgeons (n = 10) selected the esthetically acceptable images (6912 esthetic evaluations [2 parameters × 6 sets × 9 images × 64 judges]). Effects of photogrammetric stimuli and other factors on judges’ zone of esthetical acceptability (ZA) and its midrange were assessed statistically (α = 0.05).

Results

Orthodontists and surgeons had respectively the broadest and narrowest ZAs (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Mean midranges of surgeons, orthodontists, and laypeople were respectively 0.27 ± 1.35, 0.56 ± 1.46, and 0.41 ± 1.77 mm for males’ lower lips (p = 0.710, ANOVA); 0.27 ± 1.10, − 0.44 ± 0.91, and 0.03 ± 1.56 mm for females’ lower lips (p = 0.034); 10.40 ± 3.17°, 11.09 ± 2.86°, and 11.57 ± 3.84° for men’s profile convexity (p = 0.246); 10.27 ± 3.20°, 11.05 ± 1.87°, and 11.13 ± 3.26° for women’s profile convexity (p = 0.346). Judges’ gender did not affect their esthetic perception (p > 0.1). When patients’ left side of face was visible, judges’ esthetic preference parameters shifted towards a less convex profile and a narrower ZA (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Slightly protruded lips (for men) and slightly less convex profiles (for men/women) might be favored by all groups. Women’s esthetic lip positions might differ among groups. Judges’ gender might not be a determinant. Subjects’ face side can influence judges’ esthetic perception of facial convexity.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Massad JJ (1999) A perspective on dental beauty. Dent Today 18:46–49PubMed Massad JJ (1999) A perspective on dental beauty. Dent Today 18:46–49PubMed
2.
go back to reference Sodagar A, Borujeni DG (2013) Evaluation of anteroposterior lip positions in the most-favored iranian facial profiles using silhouette. J Dent (Tehran, Iran) 10:393–404 Sodagar A, Borujeni DG (2013) Evaluation of anteroposterior lip positions in the most-favored iranian facial profiles using silhouette. J Dent (Tehran, Iran) 10:393–404
3.
go back to reference Berneburg M, Dietz K, Niederle C, Goz G (2010) Changes in esthetic standards since 1940. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137(450):e1–e9 discussion −1 Berneburg M, Dietz K, Niederle C, Goz G (2010) Changes in esthetic standards since 1940. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137(450):e1–e9 discussion −1
4.
go back to reference Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210PubMed Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210PubMed
5.
go back to reference Nguyen DD, Turley PK (1998) Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:208–217CrossRef Nguyen DD, Turley PK (1998) Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:208–217CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD et al (2009) Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:S87–S95CrossRef Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD et al (2009) Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:S87–S95CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Raeesi E (2013) Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115:29–37PubMedCrossRef Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Raeesi E (2013) Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115:29–37PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cross JF, Cross J (1971) Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Dev Psychol 5:433–439CrossRef Cross JF, Cross J (1971) Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Dev Psychol 5:433–439CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hickman L, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Speer S (2010) Eye fixations when viewing faces. J Am Dent Assoc 141:40–46PubMedCrossRef Hickman L, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Speer S (2010) Eye fixations when viewing faces. J Am Dent Assoc 141:40–46PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Giddon DB (1995) Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1:82–93PubMedCrossRef Giddon DB (1995) Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1:82–93PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Shimomura T, Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL (2011) Evaluation of well-balanced lip position by Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:e291–e2e7CrossRef Shimomura T, Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL (2011) Evaluation of well-balanced lip position by Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:e291–e2e7CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Schlosser JB, Preston CB, Lampasso J (2005) The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:17–24CrossRef Schlosser JB, Preston CB, Lampasso J (2005) The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:17–24CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Celebi AA, Tan E, Gelgor IE, Colak T, Ayyildiz E (2013) Comparison of soft tissue cephalometric norms between Turkish and European-American adults. Sci World J 2013:806203CrossRef Celebi AA, Tan E, Gelgor IE, Colak T, Ayyildiz E (2013) Comparison of soft tissue cephalometric norms between Turkish and European-American adults. Sci World J 2013:806203CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hassebrauck M (1998) The visual process method: a new method to study physical attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 19:111–123CrossRef Hassebrauck M (1998) The visual process method: a new method to study physical attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 19:111–123CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sukhia RH, Khan M, Fida M, Shaikh A, Azam SI (2011) Esthetic preferences for facial soft tissue profiles. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 22:17–23PubMed Sukhia RH, Khan M, Fida M, Shaikh A, Azam SI (2011) Esthetic preferences for facial soft tissue profiles. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 22:17–23PubMed
18.
go back to reference Naini FB, Donaldson ANA, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:839–846PubMedCrossRef Naini FB, Donaldson ANA, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:839–846PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference McKoy-White J, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, Giddon DB (2006) Facial profile preferences of black women before and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:17–23CrossRef McKoy-White J, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, Giddon DB (2006) Facial profile preferences of black women before and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:17–23CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Miner RM, Anderson NK, Evans CA, Giddon DB (2007) The perception of children’s computer-imaged facial profiles by patients, mothers and clinicians. Angle Orthod 77:1034–1039PubMedCrossRef Miner RM, Anderson NK, Evans CA, Giddon DB (2007) The perception of children’s computer-imaged facial profiles by patients, mothers and clinicians. Angle Orthod 77:1034–1039PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ioi H, Shimomura T, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL (2008) Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134:490–495CrossRef Ioi H, Shimomura T, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL (2008) Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134:490–495CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL (2005) Anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored Japanese facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 128:206–211CrossRef Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL (2005) Anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored Japanese facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 128:206–211CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:1–7CrossRef Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:1–7CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V (2019) Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 155:832–843PubMedCrossRef Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V (2019) Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 155:832–843PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM (2002) Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121:65–72CrossRef Erbay EF, Caniklioglu CM (2002) Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121:65–72CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ricketts RM (1957) Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 27:14–37 Ricketts RM (1957) Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 27:14–37
27.
go back to reference Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMed Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMed
28.
go back to reference Jacobson A, Jacobson RL (2007) Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3-D imaging, 2nd edn. Quintessence, Hanover Park, IL Jacobson A, Jacobson RL (2007) Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3-D imaging, 2nd edn. Quintessence, Hanover Park, IL
29.
go back to reference Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ (2001) Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119:464–471CrossRef Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ (2001) Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119:464–471CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH (1993) Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 63:175–182PubMed Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH (1993) Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 63:175–182PubMed
31.
go back to reference Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA, Evans CA (1998) Presurgical profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:631–637CrossRef Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA, Evans CA (1998) Presurgical profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:631–637CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Nicholls ME, Loftus A, Mayer K, Mattingley JB (2007) Things that go bump in the right: the effect of unimanual activity on rightward collisions. Neuropsychologia 45:1122–1126PubMedCrossRef Nicholls ME, Loftus A, Mayer K, Mattingley JB (2007) Things that go bump in the right: the effect of unimanual activity on rightward collisions. Neuropsychologia 45:1122–1126PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Pisella L, Alahyane N, Blangero A, Thery F, Blanc S, Pelisson D (2011) Right-hemispheric dominance for visual remapping in humans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 366:572–585CrossRef Pisella L, Alahyane N, Blangero A, Thery F, Blanc S, Pelisson D (2011) Right-hemispheric dominance for visual remapping in humans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 366:572–585CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 104:180–187CrossRef Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 104:180–187CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH (1992) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1184–1189 discussion 9-90PubMedCrossRef Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH (1992) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1184–1189 discussion 9-90PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318PubMed Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318PubMed
37.
go back to reference Sforza C, Laino A, D'Alessio R, Grandi G, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2008) Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive and normal adolescent boys and girls. Angle Orthod 78:799–807PubMedCrossRef Sforza C, Laino A, D'Alessio R, Grandi G, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2008) Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive and normal adolescent boys and girls. Angle Orthod 78:799–807PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H (2004) Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:640–647PubMed Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H (2004) Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:640–647PubMed
39.
40.
go back to reference Hemmatpour S, Kadkhodaei Oliadarani F, Hasani A, Rakhshan V (2016) Frontal-view nasolabial soft tissue alterations after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in class III patients. J Orofac Orthop 77:400–408PubMedCrossRef Hemmatpour S, Kadkhodaei Oliadarani F, Hasani A, Rakhshan V (2016) Frontal-view nasolabial soft tissue alterations after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in class III patients. J Orofac Orthop 77:400–408PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Hershon LE, Giddon DB (1980) Determinants of facial profile self-perception. Am J Orthod 78:279–295PubMedCrossRef Hershon LE, Giddon DB (1980) Determinants of facial profile self-perception. Am J Orthod 78:279–295PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of laterality on esthetic preferences of orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, and laypeople regarding the lip position and facial convexity: a psychometric clinical trial
Authors
Seyed Mohammad Mousavi
Parinaz Saeidi Ghorani
Arash Deilamani
Vahid Rakhshan
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Electronic ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00795-w

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 4/2019 Go to the issue