Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.184

Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: A novel approach  

Denize, Erin Stewart (Department of Orthodontics, St. George's Hospital and King's College London Dental Institute)
McDonald, Fraser (Department of Orthodontics, King's College London Dental Institute)
Sherriff, Martyn (Department of Biostatistics, Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol)
Naini, Farhad B. (Department of Orthodontics, Kingston and St. George's Hospitals and St. George's Medical School)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.44, no.4, 2014 , pp. 184-194 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the relative importance of bilabial prominence in relation to other facial profile parameters in a normal population. Methods: Profile stimulus images of 38 individuals (28 female and 10 male; ages 19-25 years) were shown to an unrelated group of first-year students (n = 42; ages 18-24 years). The images were individually viewed on a 17-inch monitor. The observers received standardized instructions before viewing. A six-question questionnaire was completed using a Likert-type scale. The responses were analyzed by ordered logistic regression to identify associations between profile characteristics and observer preferences. The Bayesian Information Criterion was used to select variables that explained observer preferences most accurately. Results: Nasal, bilabial, and chin prominences; the nasofrontal angle; and lip curls had the greatest effect on overall profile attractiveness perceptions. The lip-chin-throat angle and upper lip curl had the greatest effect on forehead prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle (particularly the lower component), and mentolabial angle had the greatest effect on nasal prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, chin prominence, and submental length had the greatest effect on lip prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle, and submental length had the greatest effect on chin prominence perceptions. Conclusions: More prominent lips, within normal limits, may be considered more attractive in the profile view. Profile parameters have a greater influence on their neighboring aesthetic units but indirectly influence related profile parameters, endorsing the importance of achieving an aesthetic balance between relative prominences of all aesthetic units of the facial profile.
Keywords
Lip prominence; Perception; Attractiveness; Facial profile;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Auger TA, Turley PK. The female soft tissue profile as presented in fashion magazines during the 1900s: a photographic analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999;14:7-18.
2 Mamandras AH. Growth of lips in two dimensions: a serial cephalometric study. Am J Orthod 1984;86: 61-6.   DOI
3 Mamandras AH. Linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular lips. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:405-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Bhatia SN, Leighton BC. A manual of facial growth: a computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
5 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.   DOI
6 Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304.   DOI
7 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973;43:34-40.
9 Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:514-25.   DOI
10 Naini FB. Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
11 Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 1960;46:330-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Ricketts RM. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology. Angle Orthod 1972;42: 179-99.
13 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29:8-29.
15 Riedel RR. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod 1957;43:103-19.   DOI
16 Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966;52: 804-22.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:1-28.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod 1984;85:279-93.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Bender R, Grouven U. Ordinal logistic regression in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1997;31: 546-51.
20 Weakliem DL. A critique of the bayesian information criterion for model selection. Soc Methods Res 1999;27:359-7.   DOI
21 Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978;36:269-77.
22 Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:208-17.   DOI
23 Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:407-17.   DOI
24 Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53:262-84.   DOI   ScienceOn