Korean J Orthod.  2014 Jul;44(4):184-194. 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.184.

Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: A novel approach

• Denize ES
• McDonald F
• Sherriff M
• Naini FB

• KMID: 2273275
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.184

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the relative importance of bilabial prominence in relation to other facial profile parameters in a normal population.
METHODS
Profile stimulus images of 38 individuals (28 female and 10 male; ages 19-25 years) were shown to an unrelated group of first-year students (n = 42; ages 18-24 years). The images were individually viewed on a 17-inch monitor. The observers received standardized instructions before viewing. A six-question questionnaire was completed using a Likert-type scale. The responses were analyzed by ordered logistic regression to identify associations between profile characteristics and observer preferences. The Bayesian Information Criterion was used to select variables that explained observer preferences most accurately.
RESULTS
Nasal, bilabial, and chin prominences; the nasofrontal angle; and lip curls had the greatest effect on overall profile attractiveness perceptions. The lip-chin-throat angle and upper lip curl had the greatest effect on forehead prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle (particularly the lower component), and mentolabial angle had the greatest effect on nasal prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, chin prominence, and submental length had the greatest effect on lip prominence perceptions. The bilabial prominence, nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle, and submental length had the greatest effect on chin prominence perceptions.
CONCLUSIONS
More prominent lips, within normal limits, may be considered more attractive in the profile view. Profile parameters have a greater influence on their neighboring aesthetic units but indirectly influence related profile parameters, endorsing the importance of achieving an aesthetic balance between relative prominences of all aesthetic units of the facial profile.

Keyword

Lip prominence; Perception; Attractiveness; Facial profile

MeSH Terms

Chin
Female
Forehead
Humans
Lip
Logistic Models
Male
Surveys and Questionnaires

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 The following linear measurements were used in this investigation: 1, Zero-meridian line (a vertical line dropped from soft tissue nasion, perpendicular to the Frankfort plane) to the pronasale (pr); 2, zero-meridian line to the labrale superius (ul); 3, labrale superius to the Ricketts's E-line (ule); 4, zero-meridian line to the labrale inferius (ll); 5, labrale inferius to the Rickett's E-line (lle); 6, zero-meridian line to the soft tissue pogonion (poe); 7, submental length measured from the C-point to the menton (sml); 8, upper lip curl (ulc), measurement of the maximum concavity from a line drawn between the labrale superius and the subnasale; and 9, lower lip curl (llc), maximum concavity from the H-line of Holdaway.

• 

  Figure 2 The following angular measurements were used in this investigation: 1, Nasofrontal angle defined as the inner angle formed by a line tangent to the glabella and a line tangent to the nasal dorsum intersecting at the nasion (nfr); 2, nasolabial angle defined as the inner angle formed by a line tangent to the nasal columella and a line tangent to the upper lip intersecting at the subnasale (nl); 3, lower component of the nasolabial angle defined as the inner angle formed by a line parallel to the Frankfort plane and a line tangent to the upper lip intersecting at the subnasale (lnl); 4, mentolabial angle defined as the inner angle between a lines tangent to the lower lip and the soft tissue chin intersecting at the sublabiale (mla); 5, nasofacial angle defined as the inner angle formed by the intersection of the facial plane, glabella to pogonion, and the nasal dorsal plane, nasion to pronasale (nfa); and 6, lip-chin-throat angle defined as the inner angle between the submental plane and a line between the labrale inferius and the soft tissue pogonion (lct).

• 

  Figure 3 Example of a stimulus photograph.

• 

  Figure 4 Observer questionnaire.

• 

  Figure 5 A subset of the Bayesian Information Criterion-selected variables that influenced the responses to question 1. Bars on the plots represent the 95% confidence intervals. Refer Figures 1 and 2 for the measurements.

• 

  Figure 6 Frequency analysis for question 2.

• 

  Figure 7 A subset of the Bayesian Information Criterion-selected variables that influenced the responses to question 3. Bars on the plots represent the 95% confidence intervals. Refer Figures 1 and 2 for the measurements.

• 

  Figure 8 A subset of the Bayesian Information Criterion-selected variables that influenced the responses to question 4. Bars on the plots represent the 95% confidence intervals. Refer Figures 1 and 2 for the measurements.

• 

  Figure 9 A subset of the Bayesian Information Criterion-selected variables that influenced the responses to question 5. Bars on the plots represent the 95% confidence intervals. Refer Figures 1 and 2 for the measurements.

• 

  Figure 10 A subset of the Bayesian Information Criterion-selected variables that influenced the responses to question 6. Bars on the plots represent the 95% confidence intervals. Refer Figures 1 and 2 for the measurements.

Reference

1. Auger TA, Turley PK. The female soft tissue profile as presented in fashion magazines during the 1900s: a photographic analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999; 14:7–18.

2. Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114:208–217.

3. Mamandras AH. Growth of lips in two dimensions: a serial cephalometric study. Am J Orthod. 1984; 86:61–66.

4. Mamandras AH. Linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular lips. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94:405–410.

5. Bhatia SN, Leighton BC. A manual of facial growth: a computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford: Oxford University Press;1993.

6. Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125:407–417.

7. 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; 98:209–212.

8. Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod. 1990; 17:299–304.

9. 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; 88:323–332.

10. Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod. 1973; 43:34–40.

11. Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white Americans as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118:514–525.

12. Naini FB. Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell;2011.

13. Ricketts RM. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46:330–357.

14. Ricketts RM. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology. Angle Orthod. 1972; 42:179–199.

15. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953; 39:729–755.

16. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod. 1959; 29:8–29.

17. Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1966; 52:804–822.

18. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983; 84:1–28.

19. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85:279–293.

20. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53:262–284.

21. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1978; 36:269–277.

22. Riedel RR. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod. 1957; 43:103–119.

23. Bender R, Grouven U. Ordinal logistic regression in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1997; 31:546–551.

24. Weakliem DL. A critique of the bayesian information criterion for model selection. Soc Methods Res. 1999; 27:359–357.