Assessment of the Effect of Simulated Rhinoplasty and Genioplasty on the Facial Profile Attractiveness of Patients with a Convex Face.

AIM: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of rhinoplasty and genioplasty on facial profile attractiveness assessed by orthodontists and laypersons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, posttreatment cephalo-grams of 30 class II patients with convex profile and nasal hump who had undergone camouflage treatment were traced. These profile outlines were modified by computer software to simulate rhinoplasty and genioplasty. Then, all these outlines were converted into silhouettes. There were four groups: no modification, rhinoplasty (R), genioplasty (G), and rhinoplasty plus genioplasty (RG). Esthetic assessment of all patients was done by two panels: six orthodontists and six laypersons. Data were analyzed using Friedman's and Wilcoxon's test with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The highest mean esthetics scores belonged to RG (3.9 ± 0.6), followed by R (3.5 ± 0.5), G (2.4 ± 0.5), and the initial image of the patients (2.13 ± 0.5). There was a significant improvement following all surgeries as determined by all evaluators (p < 0.001), except for orthodontists who did not find genioplasty more esthetic than no modification (p = 0.139). The mean score of esthetics by orthodontists was more than laypersons in all groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both rhinoplasty and genioplasty improved the attractiveness of the patients' facial profiles. The greatest improvement in the facial profile attractiveness in convex faces was observed after simultaneous nasal hump elimination and chin argumentation procedures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although both rhinoplasty and genioplasty could improve patients' profile, the best result is achieved when combination of them is used for treatment of convex facial profile patients.

Evaluation of craniofacial proportions: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the need for determining the cephalometric norms for each population and the advantages of proportional analyses, we evaluated the variables of McNamara and Schwartz analyses and their relation in a pilot study on 6-17 years old Iranian students and provided formulas, which show these relations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this descriptive-analytical study, a tatal of cephalometric radiographs from the archive documents of Orthodontic Department of Isfahan Dental School was selected and traced. The variables of McNamara and Schwartz analyses were investigated. The data were analyzed by t-test and linear regression and Spearman correlation coefficient tests using SPSS 12 software, and the significance was set at 0.05. Then, a formula was suggested for predicting the relation between the jaws, cranium and face. RESULTS: The variables measured in this study were significantly different between the genders (P < 0.05), except for Co-Gn (P = 0.055), and they were higher in boys. All variables significantly increased (P < 0.05) with age from 6 to 17 years. The formulas presented in this study can be used for calculating the amount of PNS-APmax, Go-APmax and the Co-Gn, anterior nasal spine-menton in the Iranian population. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, the formula presented in this study might be considered to predict the relation between jaw dimensions and cranial base and facial dimensions in the Iranian population.