Highlights
- •Significant differences were found between attractive profiles and cephalometric norms.
- •Attractive males had greater soft tissue chin thickness compared with females.
- •Males with orthodontically normal profiles and thicker upper lips were more attractive.
- •Females with a slightly convex profile and less prominent noses were more attractive.
ABSTRACT
Background
The objective of this study was to assess the soft and hard tissue cephalometric indexes
of facial profiles perceived as attractive.
Methods
A total of 360 individuals (180 females and 180 males) with well-balanced faces and
no history of orthodontic or cosmetic procedures were selected. Twenty-six raters
(13 females and 13 males) rated the attractiveness of profile view photographs of
the enrolled individuals. According to the total score, the rated top 10% of photographs
were selected as attractive. Overall, 81 (40 soft tissue and 41 hard tissue) cephalometric
measurements were made on traced cephalograms of the attractive faces. The obtained
values were compared with orthodontic norms and attractive Whites using Bonferroni-corrected
t tests. They were also analyzed regarding age and sex effects using a two-way ANOVA
test.
Results
Significant differences were found between the cephalometric measurements of attractive
profiles and orthodontic norms. Among the most important parameters were greater H
angle and basic upper lip thickness in attractive males, and greater facial convexity
and smaller nose prominence in attractive females. Also, attractive male participants
had greater soft tissue chin thickness and subnasale perpendicular to the upper lip
compared with attractive females.
Conclusions
According to the results, males with a normal profile and thicker protruded upper
lips were perceived as more attractive. Also, females with a slightly convex profile,
deeper mentolabial sulcus, less prominent nose, and shorter maxilla and mandible were
perceived as more attractive.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of the World Federation of OrthodontistsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Soft tissue cephalometric norms of Iranian Class I adults with good occlusions and balanced faces.Int Orthod. 2016; 14: 108-122
- Facial anthropometric norms of the young Iranian population.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018; 17: 150-157
- Comparison of cephalometric norms of esthetically pleasing faces.J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009; 19: 754-758
- Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 115: 29-37
- Cephalometric studies of Ukrainian boys and girls with orthognathic bite by the method of R. M. Ricketts.Ultrasound Med Bio. 2018; 14: 088
- Cephalometric norms and esthetic profile preference for the Japanese: a systematic review.Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20: 43-51
- Evaluation of soft tissue parameters for adults with accepted occlusion using Legan and Burstone analysis.Tanta Dent J. 2015; 12: 1-6
- Evaluation of soft tissue norms on lateral cephalograms in babol.CJDR. 2017; 6: 30-34
- Soft-tissue anthropometric norms of Iranians with proper occlusion and inter-ethnic norm comparisons.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018; 17: 588-596
- Comparison of soft tissue cephalometric norms between Turkish and European-American adults.ScientificWorldJournal. 2013; 2013806203
- An evaluation of the soft-tissue facial profile in the North American black woman.Am J Orthod. 1979; 76: 84-94
- Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 50 (discussion 1189): 1184-1189
- A study of the harmonious profile in facial esthetics. Part 1. Descriptive statistics.Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 1999; 40: 35-46
- Psychometric and Perceptometric comparisons of the perspectives of orthodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and laypeople of different ages and sexes towards beauty of female jaw angles (intergonial widths and gonial heights) on frontal and three-quarter views.BioMed Res Int. 2022; 20222595662
- Facial attractiveness: general patterns of facial preferences.Anthropol Rev. 2007; 70: 45-79
- Facial attractiveness: variation, adaptiveness and consequences of facial preferences.Anthropol Rev. 2008; 71: 77-105
- Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 201-205
- Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Japanese adults.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118: 84-89
- Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132: 475-480
- Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of healthy Iranian young adults: anthropometric and angular measurements.Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014; 28: 49
- Facial height comparison in young white and black Brazilian subjects with normal occlusion.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131 (e1–706.e6): 706
- Soft tissue facial profile of normal dental and skeletal subjects in Croatian population aged 12 to 15 years.Coll Antropol. 2008; 32: 523-528
- Effects of age and gender on hard and soft tissue cephalometric features of an Iranian population over 12 years old.J Kerman Univ Med Sci. 2022; 29: 507-519
- Inter and intra-rater reliability of lateral cephalometric analysis using 2D dolphin imaging software.J Dent Sch. 2020; 38: 148-152
- Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profiles of Turkish and European-American young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces.Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34: 296-301
- Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity.Mosby, St Louis, MO2003: 100-101
- Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 155: 832-843
- Common standards in facial esthetics: craniofacial analysis of most attractive black and white subjects according to People magazine during previous 10 years.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: e216-e224
- Analysis of soft tissue facial profile in white males.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 101: 514-518
- Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles, Japanese.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: S87-S95
- Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Yemeni men.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132 (e7–14): 576
- Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces.Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 204-210
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 10, 2023
Accepted:
February 7,
2023
Received in revised form:
January 23,
2023
Received:
October 29,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Funding: This research was funded by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Research Institute for Dental Sciences.
Competing interests: Authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. None declared.
Provenance and peer review: Non-commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 World Federation of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
