Author:
Shah Romil Bharatkumar,Bhanushali Manisha Dipakbhai,Goje Santoshkumar
Abstract
BACKGROUND Orthodontics has witnessed a paradigm shift in the perception of aesthetics. Soft tissue assessment and correction has become a greater concern when compared with dental and skeletal correction. In the current era, pleasing profile is a prime requisite. The purpose of this study is to evaluate different parameters responsible for perception of a pleasing profile. METHODS Hundred dental students with well-balanced faces were selected. Profile photographs of participants were taken by DSLR camera maintaining standardized photography protocol. The principal investigator had measured ten soft tissue parameters for each profile photograph. These profile photographs were further converted into profile silhouettes. 10 laypersons appraised each profile silhouette using visual analog scale (VAS). The obtained scores were again correlated with photographic measurements of each individual to identify role of different parameters responsible for pleasing profile. RESULTS When comparing the data statistically, significant differences were found amongst the parameters between less attractive and more attractive profile; parameters include facial convexity angle, naso-labial angle, protrusion of lip relative to each other, vertical lip to chin ratio and vertical height ratio. CONCLUSIONS It was clear from this study that, amongst individuals with normal overjet, overbite and a pleasing profile, those subjects with more obtuse facial convexity angle, obtuse nasolabial angle, slightly more protruded upper lip than lower lip, equivalent vertical height ratio, and smaller lip-chin ratio vertically, were found to be more attractive, as perceived by laypersons. KEY WORDS Parameters, Photographic Soft Tissue Analysis, Silhouette Study, Pleasing Profile
Publisher
Akshantala Enterprises Private Limited
Reference20 articles.
1. [1] Matoula S, Pancherz H. Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 2006;76(2):204-10.
2. Facial harmony;NH;Am J Orthod,1971
3. [3] Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004;74(5):640-7.
4. [4] Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, et al. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese and African judges for soft - tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(Suppl 4):S87-95.
5. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population;Mantzikos;Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,1998