The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of frontal facial type and sex on preferred chin projection

  • Choi, Jin-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Taeyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Hyung-Mo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Hoon ;
  • Cho, Il-sik ;
  • Baek, Seung-Hak (Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2016.05.31
  • Accepted : 2016.08.03
  • Published : 2017.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of frontal facial type (FFT) and sex on preferred chin projection (CP) in three-dimensional (3D) facial images. Methods: Six 3D facial images were acquired using a 3D facial scanner (euryprosopic [Eury-FFT], mesoprosopic [Meso-FFT], and leptoprosopic [Lepto-FFT] for each sex). After normal CP in each 3D facial image was set to $10^{\circ}$ of the facial profile angle (glabella-subnasale-pogonion), CPs were morphed by gradations of $2^{\circ}$ from normal (moderately protrusive [$6^{\circ}$], slightly protrusive [$8^{\circ}$], slightly retrusive [$12^{\circ}$], and moderately retrusive [$14^{\circ}$]). Seventy-five dental students (48 men and 27 women) were asked to rate the CPs ($6^{\circ}$, $8^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$, $12^{\circ}$, and $14^{\circ}$) from the most to least preferred in each 3D image. Statistical analyses included the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Bonferroni correction. Results: No significant difference was observed in the distribution of preferred CP in the same FFT between male and female evaluators. In Meso-FFT, the normal CP was the most preferred without any sex difference. However, in Eury-FFT, the slightly protrusive CP was favored in male 3D images, but the normal CP was preferred in female 3D images. In Lepto-FFT, the normal CP was favored in male 3D images, whereas the slightly retrusive CP was favored in female 3D images. The mean preferred CP angle differed significantly according to FFT (Eury-FFT: male, $8.7^{\circ}$, female, $9.9^{\circ}$; Meso-FFT: male, $9.8^{\circ}$, female, $10.7^{\circ}$; Lepto-FFT: male, $10.8^{\circ}$, female, $11.4^{\circ}$; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings might serve as guidelines for setting the preferred CP according to FFT and sex.

Keywords

References

  1. Proffit WR, Phillips C, Douvartzidis N. A comparison of outcomes of orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:556-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70131-S
  2. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
  3. Koury ME, Epker BN. Maxillofacial esthetics: anthropometrics of the maxillofacial region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:806-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(92)90270-A
  4. Pettijohn TF 2nd, Jungeberg BJ. Playboy Playmate curves: changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and economic conditions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2004;30:1186-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264078
  5. Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116: 373-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70222-2
  6. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning--Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81791-3
  7. Coleman GG, Lindauer SJ, Tufekci E, Shroff B, Best AM. Influence of chin prominence on esthetic lip profile preferences. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.025
  8. Alcalde RE, Jinno T, Orsini MG, Sasaki A, Sugiyama RM, Matsumura T. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:84-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.104411
  9. Denize ES, McDonald F, Sherriff M, Naini FB. Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: a novel approach. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:184-94. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.184
  10. Toureno L, Kook YA, Bayome M, Park JH. The effect of western adaptation of Hispanic-Americans on their assessment of Korean facial profiles. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:28-35. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.28
  11. Farkas LG, Munro IR. Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. Springfield; Thomas Publisher: 1986.
  12. Rakosi T, Jonas I, Graber TM. Orthodontic diagnosis. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1993.
  13. Sicher H, DuBrul EL. Oral anatomy. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1975.
  14. Franco FC, de Araujo TM, Vogel CJ, Quintao CC. Brachycephalic, dolichocephalic and mesocephalic: Is it appropriate to describe the face using skull patterns? Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:159-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512013000300025
  15. Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der anthropologie, in systematischer darstellung. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 1957.
  16. Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Larsen PE, Shanker S. A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:690-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.030
  17. Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999;14:291-5.
  18. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:692-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.018
  19. Chong HT, Thea KW, Descallar J, Chen Y, Dalci O, Wong R, et al. Comparison of White and Chinese perception of esthetic Chinese lip position. Angle Orthod 2014;84:246-53. https://doi.org/10.2319/031213-212.1
  20. Shimomura T, Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Evaluation of well-balanced lip position by Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e291-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.030
  21. Foos PW, Clark MC. Adult age and gender differences in perceptions of facial attractiveness: beauty is in the eye of the older beholder. J Genet Psychol 2011;172:162-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2010.526154
  22. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:303-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.07.031
  23. Modarai F, Donaldson JC, Naini FB. The influence of lower lip position on the perceived attractiveness of chin prominence. Angle Orthod 2013;83:795-800. https://doi.org/10.2319/122912-974.1
  24. Marchetti C, Bianchi A, Muyldermans L, Di Martino M, Lancellotti L, Sarti A. Validation of new soft tissue software in orthognathic surgery planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.004
  25. Plooij JM, Maal TJ, Haers P, Borstlap WA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Berge SJ. Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:341-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.10.013
  26. Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:323-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0
  27. Dunlevy HA, White RP Jr, Turvey TA. Professional and lay judgment of facial esthetic changes following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1987;2:151-8.
  28. Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.17.4.299
  29. Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H, van der Linden FP, Moore AW. Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98:209-12. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0456
  30. Shelly AD, Southard TE, Southard KA, Casko JS, Jakobsen JR, Fridrich KL, et al. Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:630-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70171-5
  31. Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:1-7.
  32. Park NS, Park JH, Bayome M, Mo SS, Kim Y, Kook YA. An evaluation of preferred lip positions according to different age groups. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:637-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.10.005