Inconsistencies in evaluation of different facial profiles by dental professionals and lay Iraqi sample for attractiveness
Background and objective: Facial appearance is fundamental for communication and interaction with the environment. Attractiveness nowadays reported increasing interest and attention among different ethnicities and varying education level groups. Aim: To study the perception of facial profile attractiveness among Iraqi Orthodontists and Maxillofacial surgeons (as concerned dental professionals) compared to Iraqi lay-individuals.
Methods: Digital facial profile images were taken for a young male and female, altered in 2 degrees of prognathism and retrognathism in 4, 8 mm for each jaw, and combinations, collecting 12 images each, which were “E-mailed”to a sample of 80 Iraqis (from the pool of Baghdad society): 40 dental professionals (20 orthodontists, 20 maxillofacial surgeons), and 40 lay individuals, with equally distributed genders. Ratting was carried out for 24 images, scoring each on a numerical scale of 1-10 as the least to the most attractive profile.
Results: Significant difference in perception facial profile was found between genders (P<0.05) and among the groups with different dental education (P<0.001). General agreement was established in all the sample groups on average facial profile to be the most attractive and on the most retrognathicmandibular profile to be the least attractive.
Sforza C; Laino A; D`Alessio R; Grand G; Tartaglia GM; Ferrario VF: Soft- tissue facial characteristics of attractiveness and normal adolescent boys and girls. AngleOrthod. 2007;78,5:799-07.
Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perception of dental professionals and laypersons to ultered dental esthetics; asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2006;130:141-151.
Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. PlastReconstr Surg. 2006; 118:741-56.
Talic N, Ashakhs MS: Perception of facial profile attractiveness by Saudi sample. Saudi Dental J,2008; 20,1:17-23.
Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda RS, Zemic JH. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 175-182.
Howelles DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of rating dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiological use. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 402-408.
Riedel RA. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod 1957; 43: 103-119.
Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990; 17: 299-304.
DeSemit A, Dermaut L. Soft tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 67-73.
Czarnicki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perception of balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104: 180-187.
Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of the perception of facial profiles by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognathic Surg 1999; 14: 291-295.
Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Perceptions of facial appearance by orthodontists and general public. J Clin Orthod 1997; 31: 164-168.
Michiels G, Sather AH. Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1994; 9: 95-103.
Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 464-471.
Soh J,Chew MT,Wong HB.Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128,2:201-205.
Bell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: A comparison of patient self assessment technique. Int J Orthod 1991; 6: 123-131.
Udry J. Structural correlates of feminine preferences in Britain and the US: A comparison. Social Soc Res 1965; 49: 330-342.
The copyright on any article published in Zanco J Med Sci is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).