Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Opinion of Different Observer Groups About the Esthetic Impact and Need for Surgical Correction of Varying Submental Lengths.
Naini, Farhad B; Laskin, Daniel M; Garagiola, Umberto; Cobourne, Martyn T; McDonald, Fraser; Wertheim, David.
Affiliation
  • Naini FB; Consultant Orthodontist/Honorary Senior Lecturer, Kingston and St George's Hospitals and St George's Medical School, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Farhad.Naini@yahoo.co.uk.
  • Laskin DM; Adjunct Clinical Professor and Chairman Emeritus, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
  • Garagiola U; Professor of Orthodontics, Department of Reconstructive and Diagnostic Surgical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
  • Cobourne MT; Professor and Head of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Development, King's College London Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom.
  • McDonald F; Professor of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom.
  • Wertheim D; Professor, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 78(4): 630.e1-630.e9, 2020 Apr.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31881172
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

This study evaluated the opinion of different observer groups about the influence of the submental length on perceived attractiveness and when surgical correction was deemed necessary. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

The submental length of an idealized silhouette of a white male profile was altered incrementally between 5 and 95 mm. Images were rated for attractiveness on a Likert scale by pretreatment orthognathic surgery patients (n = 75), laypersons (n = 75), and clinicians (maxillofacial surgeons and orthodontists) (n = 35).

RESULTS:

For perceived attractiveness, the ideal submental length was approximately 50 mm (range, 40 to 75 mm). A submental length shorter than or equal to 30 mm was deemed unattractive by all 3 groups. Overall, a submental length less than 40 mm generally was judged less attractive than a comparable increase in length. Clinicians were generally least likely to suggest surgery for varying submental lengths. For this group, the cutoff at which the majority suggested surgery was a submental length of 25 mm or less. For the patient and layperson groups, the corresponding cutoff values were a length shorter than or equal to 30 mm or equal to 95 mm.

CONCLUSIONS:

A submental length of approximately 50 mm (range, 40 to 75 mm) was viewed by most observers as attractive. At 30 mm or less, it was generally deemed progressively less attractive. Clinicians were less likely to suggest corrective surgery than were the patient and layperson groups. For comparative proportional relationships, the submental length should be between the lower lip-chin height and lower facial height, assuming an otherwise proportional facial profile.
Sujet(s)

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Procédures de chirurgie orthognathique / Chirurgie orthognathique Limites: Humans / Male Langue: En Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Année: 2020 Type de document: Article

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Procédures de chirurgie orthognathique / Chirurgie orthognathique Limites: Humans / Male Langue: En Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Année: 2020 Type de document: Article