Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived facial aesthetics among three groups of observers

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2019.05.014

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To assess the influence of chin prominence on facial aesthetics with 3D images, to investigate the cognitive boundaries of chin prominence among orthodontists, general dentists and laypeople and compare the variance of their cognitive data, in order to provide quantitative reference for selection of clinical treatment. METHODS: A 3D facial image was obtained by 3dMD. The soft tissue pogonion point was altered in 2 mm increments from -10 to 10 mm with Geomagic Wrap 2015, in order to represent retrusion and protrusion of the chin. These images were rated by orthodontists, general dentists and laypeople with VAS scores. Multivariate mixed linear regression was used to analyze the influence of gender, age and chin prominence on VAS scores, and whether there were differences among different groups with SAS 9.4 software package. ANOVA was also applied for comparison of each prominence. RESULTS: This study was composed of 243 subjects, including 90 orthodontists, 101 general dentists and 52 laypeople. Chin prominence had significant effect on VAS scores. VAS scores decreased by 0.8910 for each unit increase in chin retrusion and decreased by 1.0958 for each unit increase in chin protrusion（P<0.01）. Desire for treatment started when chin retrusion exceeded 6 mm in orthodontist group and layperson group, 4 mm in general dentist group, and chin protrusion reached 6 mm in all groups（VAS scores <5）. There was no significant difference in the scores among orthodontists, general dentists and laypeople with the variance of chin prominence, and there was no significant difference in gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: Chin prominence had significant effect on facial aesthetics. Soft tissue pogonion point located on the zero meridian was considered as the most attractive. Treatment needs increased significantly when chin protrusion reached 6 mm or chin retrusion exceeded 6 mm. There was no significant difference in the assessment among orthodontists, general dentists and laypeople.

Key words: Chin prominence, Facial anesthetics, VAS scores, Soft tissue pogonion point, 3dMD

CLC Number:

R783.5

DONG Ting, YE Nian-song, YUAN Ling-jun, WU Si-cheng, XIA Lun-guo, FANG Bing. Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived facial aesthetics among three groups of observers[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2019, 28(5): 518-522.

References

[1] Benzeval M, Green MJ, Macintyre S.Does perceived physical attractiveness in adolescence predict better socioeconomic position in adulthood? Evidence from 20 years of follow up in a population cohort study[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(5): e63975
[2] Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, et al.Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review[J]. Psychol Bull, 2000, 126(3): 390-423.
[3] Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, et al.Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 135(4 Suppl): S87-S95.
[4] Schabel BJ, Franchi L, Baccetti T, et al.Subjective vs objective evaluations of smile esthetics[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 135(4 Suppl): S72-S79.
[5] Rosen HM.Aesthetic guidelines in genioplasty: the role of facial disproportion[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1995, 95(3): 463-469.
[6] Andrews LF.The 6-elements orthodontic philosophy: treatment goals, classification, and rules for treating[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2015, 148(6): 883-887.
[7] González-Ulloa M, Stevens E.The role of chin correction in profileplasty[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1968, 41(5): 477-486.
[8] Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H, van der Linden FP, et al. Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 1979, 98(2): 209-212.
[9] Maple JR, Vig KWL, Beck FM, et al.A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005, 128(6): 690-696.
[10] Shelly AD, Southard TE, Southard KA, et al.Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 117(6): 630-637.
[11] Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, et al. Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 41(7): 839-846.
[12] Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, et al. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2012, 114(3): 303-311.
[13] Pisiren AB, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Tunçer Ni.Assessing the influence of chin prominence on profile esthetics: A survey study[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2018, 46(4): 628-634.
[14] Sukhia RH, Sukhia HR, Azam SI, et al.Chin position: to treat or not to treat[J]. Int Orthod, 2018, 16(1): 105-113.
[15] Jiang Z, Tan L, Hu L, et al.Clinician, dental student, and orthognathic patient perception of black-and-white silhouette lateral profile dimensions of ideal chin position in a Chinese population[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2018, 125(1): e1-e7.
[16] Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP.A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians[J]. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, 1999, 14(4): 291-295.
[17] Abu Arqoub SH, Al-Khateeb SN.Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportions[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2011, 33(1): 103-111.
[18] Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, et al.Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 141(2): 161-168.
[19] Lübbers HT, Medinger L, Kruse A, et al.Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2010, 21(3): 763-767.