Quiroz MF, Grageda E

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 164-170
PDF size: 170.22 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The concept of facial beauty and profile harmony play a decisive role in social relationships of all people. Therefore, it is intensely studied in scientific research. Objective: Assess esthetic perception that dentists, orthodontists and patients discern on computer-modified profiles. Materials: Using two Dolphin Imaging and Management® program modified profiles, assessment made by 30 patients, 30 orthodontists and 30 maxillofacial surgeons attached to the Graduate School, National School of Dentistry, National University of Mexico. Methods: Photographs and cephalographs of a Mexican man and a woman were used. Position of upper and lower jaws were modified by the Dolphin Imaging and Management® program, so as to create two sequences. 90 subjects (30 orthodontists, 30 maxillofacial surgeons and 30 patients of the Graduate School) assessed profiles in the visual, analogical scale. SPSS was used to process statistical analysis. Scores given by surgeons, orthodontists and patients for each profile were compared with the help of Kruskall-Wallis tests. Results: Reliability within evaluators was deemed as «good». Facial attraction perception of orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons was generally in agreement. Patients thought otherwise. Interactions of anterior-posterior and vertical dimension, as well as amount of change between each dimension influences perception of facial attraction. Conclusions: Results suggest that facial attractiveness preferences among orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons were generally in agreement. This information can help clinicians to plan treatment and suggest recommendations.

REFERENCES

1. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1990; 1: 115-121.

2. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 1994; 108; 233-242.

3. Thornhill R, Gangestad, SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1999; 3: 452-459.

4. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1981; 3: 151-162.

5. Gosney MBE. An investigation into some of the factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1986; 13: 87-94.

6. Birkeland K, Bře OE, Wisth PJ. Orthodontic concern among 11-year-old children and their parents compared with orthodontic treatment need assessed by index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 197-205.

7. Tuominen ML, Tuominen RJ, Nyström M. Subjective orthodontic treatment need and perceived dental appearance among young Finnish adults with and without previous orthodontic treatment. Comm Dent Health 1994; 11: 29-33.

8. Salonen L, Mohlin B, Götzlinger B, Helldén L. Need and demand for orthodontic treatment in an adult Swedish population. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 359-368.

9. Lew KK. Attitudes and perceptions of adults towards orthodontic treatment in an Asian community. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21: 31-35.

10. Kiyak HA, Holh T, Sherrick P, West RA, McNeill RW, Bucher F. Sex differences in motives for and outcomes of orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1981; 39: 757-764.

11. Jacobson A. Psychological aspects of dentofacial aesthetics and orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 1984; 54: 18-35.

12. Flanary CM, Barnwell GM, Alexander JM. Patient perceptions of orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 137-145.

13. McKiernan EXF, McKiernan F, Jones ML. Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1992; 7: 187-98.

14. Rivera SM, Hatch JP, Dolce C, Bays RA, Van Sickels JE, Rugh JD. Patient’s own reasons and patient-perceived recommendations for orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 134-140.

15. Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA, Evans CA. Presurgical profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 631-637.

16. 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.

17. Maxwell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: a comparison of patient self assessment techniques. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1991; 6: 123-131.

18. Wilmot JJ, Barber HD, Chou DG, Vig KWL. Associations between severity of dentofacial deformity and motivation for orthodontic-orthognathic surgery treatment. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 283-288.

19. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995; 1: 82-93.

20. Hunt OT, Johnston CD, Hepper PG, Burden DJ. The psychosocial impact of orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 490-497.

21. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 1999; 2: 49-52.

22. Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 373-389.

23. Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, Cummings DR, Beress A, Worley CM Jr et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 239-253.

24. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 395-411.

25. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 327-36.

26. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 464-471.