Submitted: 01 Mar 2018
Accepted: 01 Mar 2018
ePublished: 01 Mar 2018
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2017;29(3): 93-102.
  Abstract View: 27

Original

Perception of Facial Profile Esthetics by Iranian Dental Patients, Dentists, and Orthodontists

Majid Mahmoudzadeh, Vahid Shahidi-Zandi*, Payam Amini, Hossain Rajabi
*Corresponding Author: Email: vahidshahidi13@gmail.com

Abstract

Background and Aim: Several studies have compared the orthodontists’, dentists’, and dental patients’ opinions with regard to facial profile esthetics; however, the Iranian population has been limitedly researched in this respect. Our aim was to determine the differences in the esthetic preferences of Iranian patients, dentists, and orthodontists with regard to facial profile esthetics.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, ideal facial profiles for both genders were chosen, and nine anteroposterior combinations for each sex were obtained using the Dolphin imaging software program. 132 individuals (44 subjects per group) were asked to rank the facial profiles from 1 to 9 (the least and most attractive facial profiles, respectively). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-U-Whitney tests were utilized to compare the results.
Results: The facial profile with a retrusive maxilla/protrusive mandible was ranked as the worst profile by orthodontists, dentists, and patients (males: 1.25, 1.52, and 1.45, respectively, P=0.128; females: 1.89, 1.84, and 1.59, respectively, P=0.745). The orthodontists and dentists rated the ideal facial profile as the best profile (males: 7.98 and 7.80, respectively, P=0.033; females: 8.05 and 8.02, respectively, P=0.008); howev-er, the patients chose the retrusive mandible as the most attractive facial profile (males: 7.82, P=0.043; females: 7.89, P=0.009).
Conclusion: Clinicians must consider the patient’s idea about the ideal facial profile that he/she wants to achieve at the end of the treatment. Based on the results of this study, the Iranian patients prefer a more convex facial profile, which can be considered as an important factor in treatment planning.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 28

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.