Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2013.29.4.347

Subjective Evaluation about Ideal Position of the Subnasale on Lateral Photos  

Kim, Yi-Dong (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Lee, Sang-Min (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.29, no.4, 2013 , pp. 347-358 More about this Journal
Abstract
When analyzing soft tissue of the profile, Subnasale is often used as an important reference point. But there are few studies on the ideal position of the Subnasale. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to present an objective reference of the esthetic face relating to the change of Subnasale position in Koreans' profile, and also to determine whether there is concordance between professionals and laypersons in their perception of facial attractiveness. The one determined as appropriate profile portion by experts of pictures taken in women in 20s was selected. The photograph was modified changing the Subnasale anteroposteriorly on the plane perpendicular to the true vertical line, while maintaining the nasolabial angle. The photographs were presented to a group of professionals (9 orthodontists) and 126 laypersons, who were asked to assess the facial attractiveness of the photographs on a VAS independently. The conclusion was obtained. 1. The ideal position of the Subnasale is when the ratio of the distance Lateral canthus~Subnasale : Subnasale~Pronasale is 1.769 : 1. 2. The ideal degrees between the true vertical line passing through Nasion and Subnasale is $5.5^{\circ}$ 3. The professionals recognized every change in the ratio, but the laypersons couldn't differentiate between the change from 1.571 : 1 to 1.769 : 1.
Keywords
Soft tissue of the profile; Subnasale; Visual analogue scale;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Baldwin DC. Appearance and aesthetics in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;9:244-56.
2 Sarver DM. The esthetic impact of orthodontics : Planning treatment to meet patient's needs. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:99-102.
3 Papel ID. Quantitative facial esthetics evaluation with computer imaging. Facial Plast surg 1009;7:35-44.
4 Robinson SW, Speidel TM. Soft tissue profile change produced by reduction of mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 1972;42:227-35.
5 Hodaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use on orthodontic treatment planning Part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:1-28.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Hodaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use on orthodontic treatment planning Part II. Am J Orthod 1983;85:279-63.
7 Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive face are only average. Psychological Sci 1990;1:115-20.   DOI
8 Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Hreczko TA. Anthropometric proportion in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. Am J Orthod 1984;86:52-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Average face are attractive, but very attractive face are not average. Psychological Sci 1991;2:123-5.   DOI
10 Perret DI, May K. Attractive characteristics of female face. Nature Lond 1994;38:239-42.
11 Peck H, Pech S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
12 Riketts RM. Planning treatment on the base of facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957:27:14-37.
13 Wuerpel EH. On facial balance and harmony. Angle Orthod 1937;7:81-9.
14 Ioi H, Nakata S. Anteroposterior lip position of the most favored Japanese facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;128:206-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Soh J, Chew MT. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;127:692-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Arezoo J, Mohammad B, Yekta A. Evaluation of the divine proportion in the facial profile of young females. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19;292-296   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Romani KL, Agahi F. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical difference in facial profile by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 1993;63:175-82.
18 Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53;262-84.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H. Perception of dentofacial morphology by lay persons, general dentists and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98:209-12.   DOI
20 Bell R, Kiyk HA. Perception of facial profile and their influences on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:323-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Scheideman GB, Bell WH, Legan HL, Finn RA, Reisch JS. Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J orthod 1980;78;404-20.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR, Beress A, Worley CM, Chung B, Bergman R. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod 1999;116;239-53.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Esthetics. New York, Thiemestratton Inc, 1984.
24 Martin JG. Racial ethnocentrism and judgement of beauty. J Soc Psychol 1964;63:59.   DOI
25 Iliffe AH. A study of preferences in feminine beauty. Brit J Psychol 1960;51:276.
26 Udry JR. Structural correlates of feminine beauty preferences in Britain and United States : a comparison. Socio and Social Res 1965;49:330.
27 Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ. Perception of facial appearance by orthodontists and general public. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:164-8.
28 Dunlevy HA, White RP, Proffit WR. Professional and lay judgement of facial esthetics changes following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult 1987;2:151-8.
29 Kerr WJS. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Lines PA, Lines RR. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978;73:648-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Howella DJ, Shawo. The validity and reliability of rating of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod 1985;88:402-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Phillips C. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthod 1995;10:127-35.
33 Burcal RG, Laskin DM. Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofacial surg 1987;45:666-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Julie C. Faure. et al. The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:1-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:214-20.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Aitken RCB. Measurement of feeling using visual analogue scale. Proc R Soc Med 1969;62:17-21.
37 Sandra AM, Marina LV, Mladen S. Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements. Eur J Orthod 2008;30;135-140.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Siddik M, Abdullah D, Tancan U, Naci C. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 2009;31;174-179.   DOI   ScienceOn