American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleSelf-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people
Section snippets
Material and methods
The Research Ethics Committee of the University of North Paraná, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil, under protocol number 2.359.615, approved this study.
The sample calculation was based on the study of McKeta et al.18 To compare straight, convex, and concave profiles—considering an average standard deviation of 0.669, at a significance level of 5% and power of 80%—we determined that a total of 38 subjects should be included in each group. For comparison between lay people and orthodontists, the same
Results
The intraexaminer error for patients, lay people, and orthodontists was evaluated by the weighted kappa, and the results were interpreted using the classification proposed by Landis and Koch.21 The kappa ranged from 0.77 to 0.83, 0.75 to 0.76, and 0.62 to 0.71 for patients, lay people, and orthodontists, respectively. The agreement was considered substantial and almost perfect for the patients, and substantial for lay people and orthodontists. The intraexaminer systematic error of the facial
Discussion
Understanding the patients' expectations about the treatment and their self-perception of facial esthetics and smile is an important aid during orthodontic planning. The concern about the patient's facial perception evidences a paradigm shift, in which the treatment planning—initially performed only by the orthodontists—currently considers the participation of patients. In this sense, because of the lack of studies in the literature evaluating the perception of patients by a complete evaluation
Conclusions
- 1.
Deviation from a balanced profile did not influence facial pleasantness according to patients, lay people, or orthodontists. The only exception was noted in the assessment of the profile photographs by orthodontists, which attributed to lower scores for patients with convex profiles.
- 2.
The assessment of facial esthetics by orthodontists was different from patients and lay people. Orthodontists attributed lower pleasantness scores in almost all evaluations.
- 3.
Although a tendency to attribute lower
References (32)
- et al.
Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2004) - et al.
Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1998) - et al.
Satisfaction with facial profile aesthetics: are norms overrated?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2018) Quality of life and self-esteem of female orthognathic surgery patients
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2016)Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2015)- et al.
Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2014) - et al.
Early treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived improvements in facial profile
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2009) - et al.
The importance of using the entire face to assess facial profile attractiveness
Int Orthod
(2016) - et al.
Perceived facial changes of Class II Division 1 patients with convex profiles after functional orthopedic treatment followed by fixed orthodontic appliances
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2017) - et al.
Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2012)
Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial Esthetics
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible
Prog Orthod
Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appliance
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Perceived relative attractiveness of facial profiles with varying degrees of skeletal anomalies
J Orofac Orthop
Soft tissue evaluation of contemporary Caucasian and African American female facial profiles
Angle Orthod
Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Cited by (6)
Self-Recognition and Self-Preference Regarding Facial Profile and Its Association with A-Point–Nasion–B-Point (ANB) Angle in Orthodontic Patients
2024, Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons PakistanEsthetic preferences of orthodontists, dentists, and plastic surgeons for balanced facial profiles
2023, Journal of Oral ScienceEffect of smile esthetics on the quality of life in a Han Chinese population
2023, Journal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistryDoes Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ) reflect the impact of malocclusion on facial aesthetics?
2023, Dental Press Journal of OrthodonticsIs psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire (pidaq) valid for the indian population?-A psychometric study
2021, Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.