The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of lower facial height and anteroposterior lip position on esthetic preference for Korean silhouette profiles

  • Seo, Kyung-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • So, Deuk-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Song, Kyeong-Tae (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Kwon (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kang, Kyung-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • Received : 2021.04.07
  • Accepted : 2021.06.18
  • Published : 2021.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the esthetic preference for various Korean silhouette profiles. Methods: The Korean average male and female profiles were modified by changing the lower facial height and anteroposterior lip position to produce nine types of profiles. In order to test intrarater reliability, the average profile was copied once more to be included for evaluation. A questionnaire containing 10 profiles for each sex, each of which had to be rated for preference on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, was administered to 30 adult orthodontic patients, 30 dental students, 30 orthodontists, and 30 dentists excluding orthodontists. The data were statistically analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA. Results: The ICC of overall intrarater reliability was 0.629. For several profiles, significantly higher scores were given to male profiles than to female profiles (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the scores for all profiles among the four rater groups. Among the short profiles, a significantly higher score was given to the retruded profile, and among the vertically average and long profiles, a significantly higher score was given to the horizontally average profile (p < 0.001). Among all the profiles, significantly lower scores were given to the protruded profile (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study revealed good overall intrarater reliability, with several types of male profiles being esthetically preferred over female profiles. Moreover, while retruded and horizontally average profiles were generally preferred, protruded profiles were not.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by Wonkwang University in 2020.

References

  1. Franzoi SL, Herzog ME. Judging physical attractiveness: what body aspects do we use? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1987;13:19-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167287131002
  2. Mueser KT, Grau BW, Sussman S, Rosen AJ. You're only as pretty as you feel: facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;46:469-78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.2.469
  3. Macias Gago AB, Romero Maroto M, Crego A. The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:335-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr014
  4. 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; quiz 801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.030
  5. Bonetti GA, Alberti A, Sartini C, Parenti SI. Patients' self-perception of dentofacial attractiveness before and after exposure to facial photographs. Angle Orthod 2011;81:517-24. https://doi.org/10.2319/101510-606.1
  6. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;75:328-38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198503000-00005
  7. Burstone CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 1958;44:1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(58)90178-7
  8. Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD, et al. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4 Suppl):S87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.019
  9. Ioi H, Shimomura T, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:490-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.070
  10. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3D imaging. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2006.
  11. The Korean Association of Orthodontists. Lateral cephalometric analysis of Korean adult normal samples. Seoul: The Korean Association of Orthodontists; 1997.
  12. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A. Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod 2005;75:326-32.
  13. Murakami T, Kataoka T, Tagawa J, Yamashiro T, Kamioka H. Antero-posterior and vertical facial type variations influence the aesthetic preference of the antero-posterior lip positions. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:414-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv073
  14. 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
  15. Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973;43:34-40.
  16. Hier LA, Evans CA, BeGole EA, Giddon DB. Comparison of preferences in lip position using computer animated imaging. Angle Orthod 1999;69:231-8.
  17. The Council of the Faculty of Orthodontics. Textbook of orthodontics. 3rd ed. Seoul: Jisung; 2014.
  18. Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 2002;72:72-80.
  19. Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X
  20. James RD. A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:265-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70208-2
  21. Tsang ST, McFadden LR, Wiltshire WA, Pershad N, Baker AB. Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.033
  22. Baik HS, Jeon JM, Lee HJ. A study of facial soft tissue of Korean adults with normal occlusion using a three-dimensional laser scanner. Korean J Orthod 2006;36:14-29.
  23. Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 1993;63:175-82.
  24. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53:262-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X
  25. Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:161-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.041
  26. 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
  27. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:464-71. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113656