Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing the Influence of Anteroposterior Lip Position Based on Esthetic Line on the Perceived Attractiveness

  • Jung, Ha-Yoon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Oh, Je-Seok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Zheng, Hui (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Chung, Kwang (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jung, Seunggon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Hong-Ju (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Oh, Hee-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kook, Min-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2013.11.29
  • Accepted : 2013.12.21
  • Published : 2013.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of lip anteroposterior position based on esthetic line on the perceived attractiveness. Materials and Methods: We selected a 20s female standard lateral photograph which was within average range of cephalometric analysis, modified lips anteroposterior position based on esthetic line into 5 pictures. This study investigated and compared the preference of facial profile among the groups; male : female and dental relevance: non-dental relevance. Total 255 judges (male : female=138 : 117, relevant : non-relevant=159 : 96) who were 20s to 30s were asked to rate these photographs based in lip attractiveness using visual analogue scale (VAS). Result: All groups had similarity the average of VAS of moved backward lips 2 mm were highest and moved forward lips 4 mm were lowest. Comparing between male group and female group, there were significant differences in all pictures except for original which was not modified. In the dental groups, moved forward lips 2 mm had significant difference and the average in dental relevant group were lower than non-relevant group in lip protrusion. Conclusion: The preference about lip protrusion was similar irrespective of dental knowledge or gender. All groups preferred retrusion of lips to protrusion of lips. In female group, they had higher the average of VAS. In relevant group, they disliked protrusion rather than retrusion of lips significantly.

Keywords

References

  1. Baldwin DC. Appearance and aesthetics in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1980; 8: 244-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1980.tb01296.x
  2. Sarver DM. The esthetic impact of orthodontics: planning treatment to meet patients' needs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993; 124: 99-102.
  3. Papel ID. Quantitative facial aesthetic evaluation with computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg. 1990; 7: 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1064662
  4. Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod. 1973; 43: 34-40.
  5. Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 180-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X
  6. Ricketts RM. Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod. 1968; 54: 272-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(68)90278-9
  7. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46: 721-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7
  8. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53: 262-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X
  9. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983; 84: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90144-6
  10. Hsu BS. Comparisons of the five analytic reference lines of the horizontal lip position: their consistency and sensitivity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 355-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81333-2
  11. Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans--an esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 240-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81725-1
  12. Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 1-7.
  13. Song S, Choi IC. A study on the facial esthetic preferences among Korean youths: assessment of profile preferences. Korean J Orthod. 1992; 22: 881-920.
  14. Ko SJ, Kim HS, Kim YJ. The influence of gender or culture on determining esthetic facial profile. Korean J Orthod. 2001; 31: 301-9.
  15. Kazanis K. An evaluation of lip attractiveness. Place unknwon: Saint Louis University; 2012.
  16. Choi JG, Lee KS. A study of esthetic facial profile preference in Korean. Korean J Orthod. 2002;32:327-42.
  17. Burcal RG, Laskin DM, Sperry TP. Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987; 45: 666-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(87)90304-1
  18. Faure JC, Rieffe C, Maltha JC. The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.1.1
  19. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992; 20: 214-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1992.tb01719.x
  20. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 402-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90067-3
  21. Aitken RC. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med. 1969; 62: 989-93.
  22. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 692-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.018
  23. Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 201-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.041
  24. Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD, Yamaguchi H. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for softtissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(4 suppl): S87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.019
  25. Kuroda S, Sugahara T, Takabatake S, Taketa H, Ando R, Takano-Yamamoto T. Influence of anteroposterior mandibular positions on facial attractiveness in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: 73-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.021
  26. Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod. 1993; 63: 175-82.
  27. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970; 40: 284-318.
  28. Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H, van der Linden FP, Moore AW. Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979; 98: 209-12. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0456
  29. Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 323-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0
  30. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1978; 73: 648-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7