Subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry with three-dimensional simulated images among the orthodontists and laypersons: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Abstract Objectives We used three-dimensional (3D) virtual images to undertake a subjective evaluation of how different factors affect the perception of facial asymmetry among orthodontists and laypersons with the aim of providing a quantitative reference for clinics. Materials and methods A 3D virtual symmetrical facial image was acquired using FaceGen Modeller software. The left chin, mandible, lip and cheek of the virtual face were simulated in the horizontal (interior/exterior), vertical (up/down), or sagittal (forward or backward) direction in 3, 5, and 7 mm respectively with Maya software to increase asymmetry for the further subjective evaluation. A pilot study was performed among ten volunteers and 30 subjects of each group were expected to be included based on 80% sensitivity in this study. The sample size was increased by 60% to exclude incomplete and unqualified questionnaires. Eventually, a total of 48 orthodontists and 40 laypersons evaluated these images with a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS). The images were presented in random order. Each image would stop for 30 s for observers with a two-second interval between images. Asymmetry ratings and recognition accuracy for asymmetric virtual faces were analyzed to explore how different factors affect the subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry. Multivariate linear regression and multivariate logistic regression models were used for statistical data analysis. Results Orthodontists were found to be more critical of asymmetry than laypersons. Our results showed that observers progressively decreased ratings by 1.219 on the VAS scale and increased recognition rates by 2.301-fold as the degree of asymmetry increased by 2 mm; asymmetry in the sagittal direction was the least noticeable compared with the horizontal and vertical directions; and chin asymmetry turned out to be the most sensitive part among the four parts we simulated. Mandible asymmetry was easily confused with cheek asymmetry in the horizontal direction. Conclusions The degree, types and parts of asymmetry can affect ratings for facial deformity as well as the accuracy rate of identifying the asymmetrical part. Although orthodontists have higher accuracy in diagnosing asymmetrical faces than laypersons, they fail to correctly distinguish some specific asymmetrical areas.