The Perception Of Facial Profile Attractiveness By Changing The Lower Facial Vertical And Antero-Posterior Proportion

The Perception Of Facial Profile Attractiveness By Changing The Lower Facial Vertical And Antero-Posterior Proportion

Authors

  • Pratik Gandhi
  • Kalpesh Patel
  • Padmaja Sharma Arora
  • Nikunj Patel
  • Kalpesh Patel

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i6.1394

Keywords:

Facial profile image, esthetics, preference, the questionnaire

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the influence of changing the antero-posterior and vertical facial proportions on attractiveness rankings and to determine if these rankings would be influenced by gender and profession of the evaluators. Facial profile images were used as a mean of stimulus presentation. It has been shown that photographs provide valid, reproducible and representative ratings of dental and facial appearance. Objective: This study was to determine what Indian society considers optimal for facial attractiveness and whether this preference is affected by gender and profession. Method: Total 500 evaluators were selected for this study, from which 250 evaluators were dentist and 250 evaluators were non-dentist. Conclusion: At the end of the study it was concluded that the male and female profile images with average lower facial height consider as a most attractive by the both the groups. The class – II profile image of male and female profiles consider as a more attractive than class- III profile images. [Pratik G NJIRM 2016; 7(6): 59-68]

References

1. Giddon D B et al. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Seminars in Orthodontics1995; 1: 82–93.
2. Orsini M G et al. Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the antero-posterior position of the mandible. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006; 130: 283–291.
3. Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M. The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. European Journal of Orthodontics 2002; 24: 199-204.
4. Shaw W C. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. American Journal of Orthodontics 1981; 79: 399–415.
5. Kerr W J S, O’Donnell J M. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. British Journal of Orthodontics 1990; 24: 199–204.
6. Maganzini A L, Tseng J Y K, Epsten J Z. Perception of facial esthetics by native Chinese participants by using manipulated digital imagery techniques. Angle Orthodontist 2000; 70: 393–399.
7. De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft tissue profile preference. American Journal of Orthodontics 1984; 86: 67–73.
8. Erbay E F, Caniklioglu C M. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2002; 121: 65–72.
9. Johnston D J, Hunt O, Johnston C D, Burden D J, Stevenson M, Hepper P et al. The influence of the lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness. European Journal of Orthodontics 2005; 27: 349–354.
10. Knight H, Keith O. Ranking of facial attractiveness. European Journal of Orthodontics 2005; 27: 340–348.
11. Maple J R, Vig K W L, Beck F M, Larsen P E, Shanker S. A comparison of providers’ and consumers’ perception of facial profile attractiveness. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005; 128: 690–695.
12. Romani K L, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik J H. Evaluation of the horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthodontist 1993; 63: 175–182.
13. Connor A M, Moshiri F. Orthognathic surgery norms for American black patients. American Journal of Orthodontics 1985; 87: 119–134.
14. Mantzikos T. Aesthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998; 114: 1–7.
15. Thomas R G. An evaluation of the soft-tissue facial profile in the North American black woman. American Journal of Orthodontics 1979; 76: 84–95.
16. Polk M S, Farman A G, Yancey J A, Gholston L R, Johnston BE, Regenitter F J et al. Soft tissue profile: a survey of African American preference. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1995; 108: 90–101.
17. Miyajima K, McNamara J A, Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T. Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996; 110: 431–438.
18. Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthodontist 2004; 74: 640–647.
19. Sarah H. Abu Arqoub and Susan N. Al-Khateeb. Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions. European Journal of Orthodontics 2010; 33: 103-111.
20. Barrer J G, Ghafari J. Silhouette profiles in the assessment of facial esthetics: a comparison of cases treated with various orthodontic appliances.
American Journal of Orthodontics 1985; 87: 385–391.
21. Prahl-Andersen B. The need for orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthodontist 1978; 48: 1-9.
22. Hambleton RS. The soft-tissue covering of the skeletal face as related to orthodontic problems. AM J ORTHOD 1964; 50: 405-420.
23. Martha Mejia-Maidl. Preferences for Facial Profiles between Mexican Americans and Caucasians. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 953-958.

Downloads

Published

2018-02-08

How to Cite

Gandhi, P., Patel, K., Arora, P. S., Patel, N., & Patel, K. (2018). The Perception Of Facial Profile Attractiveness By Changing The Lower Facial Vertical And Antero-Posterior Proportion: The Perception Of Facial Profile Attractiveness By Changing The Lower Facial Vertical And Antero-Posterior Proportion. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine, 7(6), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i6.1394

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 6 (2016)

Section

Original Articles