Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values

Authors: Farhad B. Naini, Martyn T. Cobourne, Umberto Garagiola, Fraser McDonald, David Wertheim

Published in: Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study is a quantitative evaluation of the influence of the mentolabial angle on perceived attractiveness and threshold values of desire for surgery.

Methods

The mentolabial angle of an idealized silhouette male Caucasian profile image was altered incrementally between 84° and 162°. Images were rated on a Likert scale by pretreatment orthognathic patients (n = 75), lay people (n = 75) and clinicians (n = 35).

Results

A mentolabial angle of approximately 107° to 118° was deemed the most attractive, with a range of up to 140° deemed acceptable. Angles above or below this range were perceived as unattractive, and anything outside the range of below 98° or above 162° was deemed very unattractive. A deep mentolabial angle (84°) or an almost flat angle (162°) was deemed the least attractive.
In terms of threshold values of desire for surgery, for all groups, a threshold value of ≥162° and ≤84° indicated a preference for surgery, although clinicians were least likely to suggest surgery. The clinician group was the most consistent, and for many of the images, there was some variation in agreement between clinicians and lay people as to whether surgery is required. There was even more variability in the assessments for the patient group.

Conclusions

It is recommended that in orthognathic and genioplasty planning, the range of normal variability of the mentolabial angle, in terms of observer acceptance, is taken into account as well as threshold values of desire for surgery. The importance of using patients as observers in attractiveness research is stressed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rosen H (1991) Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:760–767CrossRefPubMed Rosen H (1991) Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:760–767CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Naini FB (2011) Regional aesthetic analysis: mentolabial (labiomental) fold. In: Naini FB (ed) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef Naini FB (2011) Regional aesthetic analysis: mentolabial (labiomental) fold. In: Naini FB (ed) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Naini FB, Gill DS (2017) Principles of orthognathic treatment planning. In: Naini FB, Gill DS (eds) Orthognathic surgery: principles, planning and practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford Naini FB, Gill DS (2017) Principles of orthognathic treatment planning. In: Naini FB, Gill DS (eds) Orthognathic surgery: principles, planning and practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
4.
go back to reference Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A (2005) Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod 75:326–332PubMed Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A (2005) Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod 75:326–332PubMed
5.
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, layperson and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:839–846CrossRefPubMed Naini FB, Donaldson ANA, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, layperson and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:839–846CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Farkas LG, Kolar JC (1987) Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg 14:599–616PubMed Farkas LG, Kolar JC (1987) Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg 14:599–616PubMed
7.
go back to reference Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face. In: Farkas LG (ed) Anthropometry of the head and face, 2nd edn. Raven, New York Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face. In: Farkas LG (ed) Anthropometry of the head and face, 2nd edn. Raven, New York
8.
go back to reference Naini FB (2011) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef Naini FB (2011) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126:390–423CrossRefPubMed Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126:390–423CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Naini FB, Cobourne MT, McDonald F, Donaldson AN (2008) The influence of craniofacial to standing height proportion on perceived attractiveness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:877–885CrossRefPubMed Naini FB, Cobourne MT, McDonald F, Donaldson AN (2008) The influence of craniofacial to standing height proportion on perceived attractiveness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:877–885CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Powell N, Humphreys B (1984) Proportions of the aesthetic face. Thieme, New York Powell N, Humphreys B (1984) Proportions of the aesthetic face. Thieme, New York
12.
go back to reference Papel ID (2004) Computer imaging for facial plastic surgery. In: Papel ID (ed) Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart Papel ID (2004) Computer imaging for facial plastic surgery. In: Papel ID (ed) Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart
13.
go back to reference Lehocky BE (2006) Anthropometry and cephalometric facial analysis. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery, vol II, 2nd edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia Lehocky BE (2006) Anthropometry and cephalometric facial analysis. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery, vol II, 2nd edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia
14.
go back to reference Legan H, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMed Legan H, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMed
15.
go back to reference Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177–190PubMed Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177–190PubMed
16.
go back to reference Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, Yin G, McGrath C (2015) Inter-ethnic/racial facial variations: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of photogrammetric studies. Plos One 10(8):e0134525CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, Yin G, McGrath C (2015) Inter-ethnic/racial facial variations: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of photogrammetric studies. Plos One 10(8):e0134525CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, Bagic I, Baltadjiev G et al (2005) International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 16:615–646CrossRefPubMed Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, Bagic I, Baltadjiev G et al (2005) International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 16:615–646CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values
Authors
Farhad B. Naini
Martyn T. Cobourne
Umberto Garagiola
Fraser McDonald
David Wertheim
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2288-8586
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0102-8