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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Esthetics , Evaluation Studies as Topic , GenioplastyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to validate a new three-dimensional craniofacial stereophotogrammetry imaging system (3dMDface) through comparison with manual facial surface anthropometry. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements using anthropometry vs. the 3dMDface system. METHODS: Facial images using the new 3dMDface system were taken from six randomly selected subjects, sitting in natural head position, on six separate occasions each 1 week apart, repeated twice at each sitting. Exclusion criteria were excess facial hair, facial piercings and undergoing current dentofacial treatment. 3dMDvultus software allowed facial landmarks to be marked and measurements recorded. The same measurements were taken using manual anthropometry, using soluble eyeliner to pinpoint landmarks, and sliding and spreading callipers and measuring tape to measure distances. The setting for the investigation was a dental teaching hospital and regional (secondary and tertiary care) cleft centre. The main outcome measure was comparison of the craniofacial measurements using the two aforementioned techniques. RESULTS: The results showed good agreement between craniofacial measurements using the 3dMDface system compared with manual anthropometry. For all measurements, except chin height and labial fissure width, there was a greater variability with the manual method compared to 3D assessment. Overall, there was a significantly greater variability in manual compared with 3D assessments (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3dMDface system is validated for craniofacial measurements.
Subject(s)
Anthropometry , Chin , Hair , Head , Hospitals, Teaching , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , PhotogrammetryABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the inheritance pattern and prevalence of inheritable dental anomalies in a sample of patients with maxillary canine-first premolar transposition and their first-degree relatives with a sample of palatally displaced canine families. Thirty-five consecutive maxillary canine-first premolar transposition probands and 111 first-degree relatives were matched to 35 consecutive palatally displaced canine probands and 115 first-degree relatives. These were assessed for palatally displaced canines and incisor-premolar hypodontia. Parental age at birth of the proband was also noted. The results revealed that (i) there is no difference in the overall prevalence of palatally displaced canine or incisor-premolar hypodontia between the groups of relatives; (ii) first-degree relatives of bilateral palatally displaced canine probands have a higher prevalence of palatally displaced canine and incisor-premolar hypodontia than those with unilateral palatally displaced canine; and (iii) maternal age at birth of the maxillary canine-first premolar transposition probands was significantly higher than that of the palatally displaced canine probands. The results suggest that maxillary canine-first premolar transposition and palatally displaced canine are unlikely to be different genetic entities and also indicate environmental or epigenetic influences on dental development.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cuspid , Congenital Abnormalities , Diagnostic Imaging , Family , Radiography, Panoramic , Tooth Abnormalities , GeneticsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative importance of bilabial prominence in relation to other facial profile parameters in a normal population. METHODS: Profile stimulus images of 38 individuals (28 female and 10 male; ages 19-25 years) were shown to an unrelated group of first-year students (n = 42; ages 18-24 years). The images were individually viewed on a 17-inch monitor. The observers received standardized instructions before viewing. A six-question questionnaire was completed using a Likert-type scale. The responses were analyzed by ordered logistic regression to identify associations between profile characteristics and observer preferences. The Bayesian Information Criterion was used to select variables that explained observer preferences most accurately. RESULTS: Nasal, bilabial, and chin prominences; the nasofrontal angle; and lip curls had the greatest effect on overall profile attractiveness perceptions. The lip-chin-throat angle and upper lip curl had the greatest effect on forehead prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle (particularly the lower component), and mentolabial angle had the greatest effect on nasal prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, chin prominence, and submental length had the greatest effect on lip prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle, and submental length had the greatest effect on chin prominence perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: More prominent lips, within normal limits, may be considered more attractive in the profile view. Profile parameters have a greater influence on their neighboring aesthetic units but indirectly influence related profile parameters, endorsing the importance of achieving an aesthetic balance between relative prominences of all aesthetic units of the facial profile.