EFFECT OF INCISOR POSITION AND INCLINATION ON SMILING PROFILE ATTRACTIVENESS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Incisor position and inclination not only affect tooth function but also affect facial attractiveness which is the major concern of patient seeking orthodontic treatment nowadays. This study aimed to evaluate facial attractiveness in smiling profile view with different incisor position and inclination in Thai people. The photograph in smiling profile view of chosen Thai model was modified using Photoshop to obtain 8 additional photos with 2 different positions (-3 and +3 mm) and 2 different inclinations (-6 and +6 degree). Therefore, the total of 9 images was created. The 402 Thai subjects were asked to evaluate attractiveness of each image using visual analog scale.The results showed that normal position and 3 mm retrusion received higher attractiveness score than 3 mm protrustion. Normal inclination or +6 degree proclination received higher score than retroclination. The results showed that normal position and 3 mm retrusion received higher attractiveness score than 3 mm protrusion. Normal inclination or +6 degree proclination received higher score than retroclination. When considering position together with inclination, the results showed that either protrusive or retrusive incisor position, normal inclination had significantly higher attractiveness score compare to proclination or retroclination. These results suggested that protrusion of upper incisors in Thai caused reduction in facial attractiveness. Normal inclination or slightly proclined upper incisor had better attractiveness compared to retroclined upper incisors. When incisor position is changed into more protrusive or retrusive position, the inclination should be kept normal in order to maximize facial attractiveness.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of TCI is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, unless otherwise stated. Please read our Policies page for more information.
References
Andrews WA. 2008. AP relationship of the maxillary central incisors to the forehead in adult white females. Angle Orthod. 78(4): 662-669.
Faure JC, Rieffe C, & Maltha JC. 2002. The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod. 24(1): 1-7.
Fernandez-Riveiro P, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suarez-Quintanilla D. & Suarez-Cunqueiro M. 2003. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Eur J Orthod. 25(4): 393-399.
Ghaleb N, Bouserhal J, & Bassil-Nassif N. 2011. Aesthetic evaluation of profile incisor inclination. Eur J Orthod, 33(3): 228-235.
Holdaway RA. 1983. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 84(1): 1-28.
Howells DJ, & Shaw WC. 1985. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 88(5): 402-408.
Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, Stevenson M, & Hepper P. 2005. The influence of mandibular prominence on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod. 27(2): 129-133.
Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, Stevenson M, & Hepper P. 2010. Self-perception of dentofacial attractiveness among patients requiring orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod. 80(2): 361-366.
Kiekens RM, Maltha JC, van 't Hof MA, & Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. 2005. A measuring system for facial aesthetics in Caucasian adolescents: reproducibility and validity. Eur J Orthod. 27(6): 579-584.
McNamara JA Jr. 1984. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 86(6): 449-469.
Mejia-Maidl M, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, & Giddon DB. 2005. Preferences for facial profiles between Mexican Americans and Caucasians. Angle Orthod. 75(6): 953-958.
Polk MS, Jr, Farman AG, Yancey JA, Gholston LR, Johnson BE, & Regennitter FJ. 1995. Soft tissue profile: a survey of African-American preference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 108(1): 90-101.
Proffit WR, Fields HW, & Saver DM. 2013. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St.Louis: Elsevier.
Schlosser JB, Preston CB, & Lampasso J. 2005. The effects of computer-aided anteroposterior maxillary incisor movement on ratings of facial attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 127(1): 17-24.
Sharma JN. 2011. Steiner's cephalometric norms for the Nepalese population. J Orthod. 38(1): 21-31.
Soh J, Chew MT, & Wong HB. 2005a. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 127(6): 692-699.
Soh J, Chew MT, & Wong HB. 2005b. Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 128(2): 201-205.
Soh J, Chew MT, & Wong HB. 2007. An Asian community's perspective on facial profile attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 35(1): 18-24.
Sorathesn K. 1988. Craniofacial Norm for Thai in Combined Orthodontic Surgical Procedure. J Dent Assoc Thai. 38: 190-201.
Steiner CC. 1953. Cephalometrics for you and me. Angle Orthodontist. 39(10): 729-755.
Steiner CC. 1959. Ceohalometric for clinical prctice. Angle Orthodontist. 29(1): 8-29.
Suchato W, & Chaiwat J 1984. Cephalometric evaluation of the dentofacial complex of Thai adults. J Dent Assoc Thai. 34(5): 233-243.
Tweed CH. 1962. Was the development of the diagnostic facial triangle as an accurate analysis based on fact or fancy? Am J Orthod. 48: 823-840.
Xiao-Ting L, Tang Y, Huang XL, Wan H, & Chen YX. 2010. Factors influencing subjective orthodontic treatment need and culture-related differences among Chinese natives and foreign inhabitants. Int J Oral Sci. 2(3). 149-157.