[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aim & Scope
Editorial Board
Indexing & Abstracting
Advertising Policy
Editorial Policies::
Peer Review Process
Section Policies
Open Access Policy
Ethical Requirements
Publication Ethics
Plagiarism Policy
Article Processing Charges (APC)
Authorship Conflicts
Intellectual Properties
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
For Authors::
Online Submmision
Instruction to Authors
Peer review process
Publication Ethics
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
Last site contents
:: Contact Us
:: Volume 29, Issue 3 (7-2017) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2017, 29(3): 93-102 Back to browse issues page
Perception of Facial Profile Esthetics by Iranian Dental Patients, Dentists, and Orthodontists
Majid Mahmoudzadeh1 , Vahid Shahidi-Zandi * 2, Payam Amini3 , Hossain Rajabi4
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , vahidshahidi13@gmail.com
3- PhD Candidate, Department of Epidemiology and Reproductive Health, Reproductive Epidemiology Research Center, Royan Insti-tute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
4- Dentist, Private Office, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract:   (3471 Views)
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.
Keywords: Dental Esthetics, Perception, Orthodontists, Dentists, Patients
Full-Text [PDF 436 kb]   (1231 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Orthodontics
References
1. Andrews WA. AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. Angle Orthod. 2008 Jul;78(4):662-9.
2. Dorsey J, Korabik K. Social and psychological motivations for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1977 Oct;72(4):460.
3. Gosney MB. An investigation into some of the factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1986 Apr;13(2):87-94.
4. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1981;3(3):151-62.
5. Bowman SJ. More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999 Aug;130(8):1173-81.
6. Proffit WR, Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Orthodontic diagnosis: the problem-oriented approach, in Proffit W, Fields H (editors). Contemporary Orthodontics. St. Louis, Mis-souri, Mosby Co., 2013:164.
7. Sena LMF, Damasceno E Araújo LAL, Farias ACR, Pereira HSG. The influence of sagittal position of the mandible in facial attractiveness and social perception. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 Mar-Apr;22(2):77-86.
8. Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans--an esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Sep;104(3):240-50.
9. Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Jul;114(1):1-7.
10. Maganzini AL, Tseng JY, Epstein JZ. Perception of facial esthetics by native Chinese participants by using manipulated digital image-ry techniques. Angle Orthod. 2000 Oct;70(5):393-9.
11. Lew KK, Soh G, Loh E. Ranking of facial profiles among Asians. J Esthet Dent. 1992 Jul-Aug;4(4):128-30.
12. Polk MS Jr, Farman AG, Yancey JA, Gholston LR, Johnson BE, Regennitter FJ. Soft tissue profile: a survey of African-American preference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Jul;108 (1):90-101.
13. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 May;119(5):464-71.
14. 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(4):291-5.
15. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative as-sessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-thop. 2005 Jun;127(6):692-9.
16. Cox NH, van der Linden FP. Facial harmony. Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):175-83.
17. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1978 Jun; 73 (6):648-57.
18. Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod. 1990 Nov;17(4): 299-304.
19. Maxwell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: a comparison of patient self-assessment techniques. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1991;6(2):123-31.
20. Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995;10(2):127-35.
21. Thareja V, Shivaprakash G, Shamnur N, Kumar GA. An Appraisal of Indian Profile Attractiveness using Digital Image Morphing. J Ind Orthod Soc. 2012;46(1):9-16.
22. 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 Dec;128(6):690-6.
23. Sarver DM, Proffit W, Ackerman JL. Evaluation of Facial Soft Tissues, in Proffit WR, White RP, Sarver DM (editors). Contempo-rary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformity. St. Louis, Missouri, Mosby Co., 2003:115.
24. Montgomery DC. Experiments with a Single Factor: The Analysis of Variance, in Design and Analysis of Experiments. Hoboken, New Jer-sey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2017:69-78.
25. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Aug;128(2):201-5.
26. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. An Asian community's perspective on facial profile attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemi-ol. 2007 Feb;35(1):18-24.
27. de Almeida MD, Farias ACR, Bittencourt MAV. Influence of mandibular sagittal position on fa-cial esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010 Mar-Apr;15(2):87-96.
28. 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 Jun;117(6):630-7.
29. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, Cobourne MT, McDonald F. Assessing the influence of mandibular prominence on perceived attrac-tiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Dec;34(6):738-46.
30. Sawant AA, Mani SA. Facial Profile Attractiveness: Comparison Amongst Orthodontists’ and Other Dental Specialists Ranking of Treated Profiles with the Twin Block Appliances. Iran J Or-tho. 2014 Dec;9(3): e3748.
31. Türkkahraman H, Gökalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod. 2004 Oct;74(5):640-7.
32. Trehan M, Naqvi ZA, Sharma S. Perception of facial profile: How you feel about yourself. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011 May-Aug;4(2):109-111.
33. Jarungidanan P, Sorathesn K. Acceptable facial profiles in Thai non-straight profile patients. CU Dent J. 2008; 31:235-48.
34. Coleman GG, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E, Shroff B, Best AM. Influence of chin prominence on esthetic lip profile preferences. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jul;132(1):36-42.
35. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec; 3(12): 452-460.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahmoudzadeh M, Shahidi-Zandi V, Amini P, Rajabi H. Perception of Facial Profile Esthetics by Iranian Dental Patients, Dentists, and Orthodontists. J Iran Dent Assoc 2017; 29 (3) :93-102
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1924-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 29, Issue 3 (7-2017) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Iranian Dental Association

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.07 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645