A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Association of facial sagittal and vertical characteristics with facial aesthetics in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966
Authors: Krooks Laura, Pirttiniemi Pertti, Tolvanen Mimmi, Kanavakis Georgios, Lähdesmäki Raija, Silvola Anna-Sofia
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publication year: 2019
Journal: European Journal of Orthodontics
Journal name in source: European journal of orthodontics
Journal acronym: Eur J Orthod
Volume: 41
Issue: 3
First page : 279
Last page: 285
Number of pages: 7
ISSN: 0141-5387
eISSN: 1460-2210
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy062
Abstract
To explore the association of facial sagittal and vertical dimensions with aesthetic assessment by three panel groups.\nThe study population comprised adult individuals from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966). A clinical oral examination including digital facial photographs was performed. The study population was divided into subjects with the lowest and highest values in soft tissue measurements in lower anterior facial height percentage (LAFH%) (60 subjects) and antero-posterior jaw relationship [soft tissue A-point, nasion, and B-point (ANB) angle; 60 subjects] and a control group (30 subjects). Frontal and profile facial photographs were presented to three panel groups: five orthodontists, five dentists, and five laypersons, who evaluated the photographs using the visual analogue scale (VAS).\nThis study showed significant differences in VAS mean scores between the panel groups. Curve estimation revealed a significant quadratic association between aesthetic VAS evaluation and ANB angle for all panel groups. The association between ANB angle and perceived facial attractiveness was highest among orthodontists (R2 = 0.276, P = 0.001 for males; R2 = 0.285, P = 0.001 for females). However, no statistically significant association was found between facial attractiveness and LAFH%.\nFacial sagittal dimensions appeared to influence facial aesthetics more than vertical dimensions in middle-aged adults. In their perception of facial aesthetics, orthodontists were more influenced by antero-posterior jaw relationships than dentists and laypersons. The overall perception of facial attractiveness related to facial dimensions appeared to differ between the panel groups in female and male faces.\nObjective\nMaterials and methods\nResults\nConclusion
To explore the association of facial sagittal and vertical dimensions with aesthetic assessment by three panel groups.\nThe study population comprised adult individuals from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966). A clinical oral examination including digital facial photographs was performed. The study population was divided into subjects with the lowest and highest values in soft tissue measurements in lower anterior facial height percentage (LAFH%) (60 subjects) and antero-posterior jaw relationship [soft tissue A-point, nasion, and B-point (ANB) angle; 60 subjects] and a control group (30 subjects). Frontal and profile facial photographs were presented to three panel groups: five orthodontists, five dentists, and five laypersons, who evaluated the photographs using the visual analogue scale (VAS).\nThis study showed significant differences in VAS mean scores between the panel groups. Curve estimation revealed a significant quadratic association between aesthetic VAS evaluation and ANB angle for all panel groups. The association between ANB angle and perceived facial attractiveness was highest among orthodontists (R2 = 0.276, P = 0.001 for males; R2 = 0.285, P = 0.001 for females). However, no statistically significant association was found between facial attractiveness and LAFH%.\nFacial sagittal dimensions appeared to influence facial aesthetics more than vertical dimensions in middle-aged adults. In their perception of facial aesthetics, orthodontists were more influenced by antero-posterior jaw relationships than dentists and laypersons. The overall perception of facial attractiveness related to facial dimensions appeared to differ between the panel groups in female and male faces.\nObjective\nMaterials and methods\nResults\nConclusion
UTU Research Portal