Korean J Orthod.  2021 Nov;51(6):419-427. 10.4041/kjod.2021.51.6.419.

Effect of lower facial height and anteroposterior lip position on esthetic preference for Korean silhouette profiles

• Seo KH
• So DH
• Song KT
• Choi SK
• Kang KH

• KMID: 2522504
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.6.419

Abstract

Objective
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the esthetic preference for various Korean silhouette profiles.
Methods
The Korean average male and female profiles were modified by changing the lower facial height and anteroposterior lip position to produce nine types of profiles. In order to test intrarater reliability, the average profile was copied once more to be included for evaluation. A questionnaire containing 10 profiles for each sex, each of which had to be rated for preference on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, was administered to 30 adult orthodontic patients, 30 dental students, 30 orthodontists, and 30 dentists excluding orthodontists. The data were statistically analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA.
Results
The ICC of overall intrarater reliability was 0.629. For several profiles, significantly higher scores were given to male profiles than to female profiles (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the scores for all profiles among the four rater groups. Among the short profiles, a significantly higher score was given to the retruded profile, and among the vertically average and long profiles, a significantly higher score was given to the horizontally average profile (p < 0.001). Among all the profiles, significantly lower scores were given to the protruded profile (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study revealed good overall intrarater reliability, with several types of male profiles being esthetically preferred over female profiles. Moreover, while retruded and horizontally average profiles were generally preferred, protruded profiles were not.

Keyword

Esthetics; Lower facial height; Anteroposterior lip position

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 A, Korean average male profile. B, Korean average female profile.

• 

  Figure 2 Nine male profiles. A, Short-retruded profile. B, Short-horizontally average profile. C, Short-protruded profile. D, Vertically average-retruded profile. E, Vertically-horizontally average profile. F, Vertically average-protruded profile. G, Long-retruded profile. H, Long-horizontally average profile. I, Long-protruded profile.

• 

  Figure 3 Nine female profiles. A, Short-retruded profile. B, Short-horizontally average profile. C, Short-protruded profile. D, Vertically average-retruded profile. E, Vertically-horizontally average profile. F, Vertically average-protruded profile. G, Long-retruded profile. H, Long-horizontally average profile. I, Long-protruded profile.

• 

  Figure 4 The composition of the questionnaire. A numerical rating scale is placed below the profile. The score 0 represents a “very unattractive” profile, and the score 10 represents a “very attractive” profile.

Reference

1. Franzoi SL, Herzog ME. 1987; Judging physical attractiveness: what body aspects do we use? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 13:19–33. DOI: 10.1177/0146167287131002.

2. Mueser KT, Grau BW, Sussman S, Rosen AJ. 1984; You're only as pretty as you feel: facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 46:469–78. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.469.

3. Macías Gago AB, Romero Maroto M, Crego A. 2012; The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population. Eur J Orthod. 34:335–9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr014. PMID: 21447783.

4. Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Larsen PE, Shanker S. 2005; A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 128:690–6. quiz 801DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.030. PMID: 16360907.

5. Bonetti GA, Alberti A, Sartini C, Parenti SI. 2011; Patients' self-perception of dentofacial attractiveness before and after exposure to facial photographs. Angle Orthod. 81:517–24. DOI: 10.2319/101510-606.1. PMID: 21299386.

6. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. 1985; Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 75:328–38. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-198503000-00005. PMID: 3883374.

7. Burstone CJ. 1958; The integumental profile. Am J Orthod. 44:1–25. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9416(58)90178-7. PMID: 7977205.

8. Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng'ang'a PM, Rugh JD, et al. 2009; Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135(4 Suppl):S87–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.019. PMID: 19362272.

9. Ioi H, Shimomura T, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. 2008; Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 134:490–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.070. PMID: 18929266.

10. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. 2006. Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3D imaging. 2nd ed. Quintessence;Chicago: DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.02.038.

11. The Korean Association of Orthodontists. 1997. Lateral cephalometric analysis of Korean adult normal samples. The Korean Association of Orthodontists;Seoul:

12. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A. 2005; Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod. 75:326–32. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[326:EOFCOA]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 15898368.

13. Murakami T, Kataoka T, Tagawa J, Yamashiro T, Kamioka H. 2016; Antero-posterior and vertical facial type variations influence the aesthetic preference of the antero-posterior lip positions. Eur J Orthod. 38:414–21. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv073. PMID: 26453593.

14. Coleman GG, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E, Shroff B, Best AM. 2007; Influence of chin prominence on esthetic lip profile preferences. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 132:36–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.025. PMID: 17628248.

15. Foster EJ. 1973; Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod. 43:34–40. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1973)043<0034:PPADG>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 4509525.

16. Hier LA, Evans CA, BeGole EA, Giddon DB. 1999; Comparison of preferences in lip position using computer animated imaging. Angle Orthod. 69:231–8. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0231:COPILP>2.3.CO;2. PMID: 10371428.

17. The Council of the Faculty of Orthodontics. 2014. Textbook of orthodontics. 3rd ed. Jisung;Seoul:

18. Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr. 2002; Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod. 72:72–80. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0072:EDITST>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 11843277.

19. Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. 1993; Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 104:180–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X. PMID: 8338071.

20. James RD. 1998; A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 114:265–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70208-2. PMID: 9743131.

21. Tsang ST, McFadden LR, Wiltshire WA, Pershad N, Baker AB. 2009; Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135:66–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.033. PMID: 19121503.

22. Baik HS, Jeon JM, Lee HJ. 2006; A study of facial soft tissue of Korean adults with normal occlusion using a three-dimensional laser scanner. Korean J Orthod. 36:14–29.

23. Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanda R, Zernik JH. 1993; Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod. 63:175–82. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1993)063<0175:EOHAVD>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 8214785.

24. Burstone CJ. 1967; Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 53:262–84. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-X. PMID: 5227460.

25. Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE. 2012; Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 141:161–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.041. PMID: 22284283.

26. Shelly AD, Southard TE, Southard KA, Casko JS, Jakobsen JR, Fridrich KL, et al. 2000; Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 117:630–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70171-5. PMID: 10842105.

27. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. 2001; Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 119:464–71. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113656. PMID: 11343017.