Vertical facial types and chin morphology effects on the facial profile attractiveness

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2013.33.010

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Individuals with different vertical facial types have different chin morphologies. For the individuals with different vertical facial types, what is the most beautiful chin morphology?
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of vertical facial types and chin morphology on facial profile attractiveness.
METHODS: Three beautiful females were selected, including one with high mandibular angle, one with average angle and one with low angle. Their facial profile photographs were taken. A series of new pictures were generated by the small scale (2 mm per unit) modification of soft tissue chin in the sagittal direction and vertical direction. Raters consisting of 17 orthodontists and 35 laypersons were selected for aesthetic ratings, in order to evaluate the facial profile attractiveness of the individuals with different vertical facial types.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There was no esthetic difference of vertical change in female with high angle; while slightly protrude chin was perceived to be more beautiful than retruded chin. For the female with average angle, lower chin was more attractive than higher chin; slightly protruded chin was beautiful than excessive protruded chin and retruded chin. For the individual with low angle, higher chin was preferred by raters; slightly protruded chin was more beautiful than excessive protruded chin and retruded chin.The results indicate that the effects of vertical facial types and chin morphology to facial profile attractiveness are different. In clinical orthodontic, vertical facial types should be taking into consideration to change the chin morphology of the patents,

in order to obtain better profile attractiveness.

Key words: tissue construction, oral tissue construction, vertical facial types, soft tissue chin, esthetics, profile, orthodontics, chin morphology

CLC Number:

R318

Qin Xiao-xia, Wang Yu-rong, Wen Hua, Wang Jie, Ma Ce. Vertical facial types and chin morphology effects on the facial profile attractiveness[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2013.33.010.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] Trulsson U, Strandmark M, Mohlin B, et al. A qualitative study of teenagers' decisions to undergo orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance. J Orthod. 2002;29(3):197-204.

[2] Virkkula T, Kantomaa T, Julku J, et al. Long-term soft-tissue response to orthodontic treatment with early cervical headgear--a randomized study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(5):586-596.

[3] LaHaye MB, Buschang PH, Alexander RG, et al. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6):732-741.

[4] Melugin MB, Hanson PR, Bergstrom CA, et al. oft tissue to hard tissue advancement ratios for mandibular elongation using distraction osteogenesis in children. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(1):72-76.

[5] Veltkamp T, Buschang PH, English JD, et al. Predicting lower lip and chin response to mandibular advancement and genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(6):627-634.

[6] 贾培增,吴威.不同垂直骨面型者的颏部形态[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2007,25(2):142-145.

[7] 舒艳,刘珺,陈杰,等.成人骨性Ⅲ类错颌不同垂直骨面型下颌骨及颏部的比较[J].上海口腔医学,2011,20(2):191-195.

[8] Tani? T, Bla?ej Z, Miti? V. Analysis of soft tissue thickness in persons with malocclusions of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2012;140(7-8):412-418.

[9] Schlosser JB, Preston CB, Lampasso J. The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(1):17-24.

[10] Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-324.

[11] Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, et al. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(2):161-168.

[12] Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, et al. Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(7):839-846.

[13] Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, et al. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114(3):303-311.

[14] Shaughnessy S, Mobarak KA, Høgevold HE, et al. Long-term skeletal and soft-tissue responses after advancement genioplasty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(1): 8-17.

[15] Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, et al. Influence of facial convexity on facial attractiveness in Japanese. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10(4):181-186.

[16] Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, et al. The influence of mandibular prominence on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(2):129-133.

[17] 卢红飞,麦志辉,陈奇,等.垂直向控制对双颌前突患者颏部形态影响的研究[J].口腔医学研究, 2010,26(6):853-856.

[18] Yoshida I, Shoji T, Mizoguchi I. ffects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(2):126-133.

[19] 罗颂椒.当代实用口腔正畸技术与理论[M].科学技术文献出版社, 2010.

[20] Aki T, Nanda RS, Currier GF, et al. Assessment of symphysis morphology as a predictor of the direction of mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106(1):60-69.

[21] Sforza C, Laino A, D'Alessio R, et al. Three-dimensional facial morphometry of attractive adolescent boys and girls. Prog Orthod. 2007;8(2):268-281.

[22] Arps S. Threats to safe motherhood in Honduran Miskito communities: local perceptions of factors that contribute to maternal mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(4):579-586.

[23] 罗薇,杨秩,赖文莉. 视觉模拟评分法评价多个临床因素对正畸初始疼痛的影响[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2007,23(6):867-870.

[24] Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC, et al. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139 (4 Suppl):e377-389.

[25] Joss CU, Joss-Vassalli IM, Kiliaridis S, et al. Soft tissue profile changes after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(6):1260-1269.

[26] Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(6):692-699.

[27] 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(4 Suppl):S87-95.

[28] Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, et al. Anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored Japanese facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(2):206-211.

[29] Chan EK, Soh J, Petocz P, et al. Esthetic evaluation of Asian-Chinese profiles from a white perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):532-538.

[30] Shimomura T, Ioi H, Nakata S,et al. Evaluation of well-balanced lip position by Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(4):e291-297.

[31] Abu Arqoub SH, Al-Khateeb SN. Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(1):103-111.