Regional influence on the aesthetic preference of different Mongolian profiles: A comparative study of assessors from Northeast and Mainland India.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the aesthetic preferences of three different groups-layperson, dentists, and orthodontists, with different ethnic and geographical backgrounds from North-eastern and Mainland India, and to evaluate whether there is any difference in the perception of facial profile aesthetics. The influence of one's ethnic and regional origin in the perception of facial profile aesthetics was evaluated in two populations of different backgrounds using VAS scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Facial profile photos of 2 Mongolian descendants, 1 man and 1 woman having Class I (normal) profile were digitized and modified, sagittally, to obtain 7 sagittal variations of each profile. A total of 7 profile images were obtained for each of the male and female models. The photos were ranked by 240 participants from an aesthetic point of view between a score of 1 (very unattractive) and 10 (very attractive). Repeated measures ANOVA was used for intra-group comparison whereas one-way ANOVA and Z-test were used for inter-group comparisons. RESULTS: The Class I profile was the most preferred in both male and female profile photos by orthodontists of both the two populations, whereas the Class III profile (prognathic mandible) was considered the least attractive (P<0.05). North-eastern layperson and dentists preferred profiles with a slightly retrusive maxilla, while mainland layperson and dentists were tolerant to a protrusive profile (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The participants' perception regarding the Class I profile aesthetics were found to be similar. However, differences were observed in the profile preferences in people of different ethnicities and regions. Also, professional training was found to influence the perception of profile aesthetics.

Impact of facial components on the attractiveness of face: A perception-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Magazines and television displays are not merely crammed with faces-they are filled with appealing faces, and both men and women are interested in a suitable partner's appearance. This study investigated what makes a face attractive and whether perception-related differences exist between facial attractiveness and facial components. METHODS: In this descriptive-analytical study, frontal and lateral view photographs of 18 young adults (9 male and 9 female) in Class I, II, and III malocclusions were assessed by 90 orthodontists, dentists, models, and laypeople using a 7-point Likert scale in terms of attractiveness. Based on scores, attractive and unattractive groups were formed. Using image analysis software, a range of defined length, angles, perimeter, and area for lips, nose, and chin were measured for the attractive group. For statistical analysis, each group was compared using a 1-way analysis of variance. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors of different parameters to the attractiveness of facial components. RESULTS: Overall full-face width, upper lip angle, lip area, and mentolabial angle was significantly different in all the 3 classes (P ≤0.05). In Class I malocclusion, nasolabial angle among orthodontists, nasofrontal angle among dentists, lower lip among models, and full-face width among laypeople were responsible for facial attractiveness variation. In Class II malocclusion, nose to upper lip among orthodontists, Cupid's bow among dentists, wider face among models, and upper lip among layperson were responsible for variation in facial attractiveness. In Class III malocclusion, lower lip angle among orthodontists and dentists, Cupid's bows among models and layperson was responsible for variation in facial attractiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Class I faces, lips (Cupid's bows, lower lips, lip areas), nose (nasolabial, nasofrontal, and nasomental angles), and chin (lower lip to chin) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face, while in Class II faces, lips (upper lip length, interbow distance, lower lip angle), nose (full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus), as well as a greater full-face width contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face. In Class III faces, lips (lower lip angle, upper lip length), nose (nose tip angle, full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus depth) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face.