Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Soft-tissue profile preference.

A De Smit, L Dermaut

    American Journal of Orthodontics
    |July 1, 1984
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Facial profile preferences are influenced by vertical dimensions more than anteroposterior features. Class I normal profiles were most preferred, while open profiles were least favored, indicating a desire for shorter soft-tissue profiles.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Stability of upper incisor inclination changes in Class II division 2 patients.

    European journal of orthodontics·2007
    Same author

    Digital measurements: a different approach to evaluate bone formation. A technical report.

    Cells, tissues, organs·2007
    Same author

    Osteopontin and bone metabolism in healing cranial defects in rabbits.

    International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery·2006
    Same author

    Osteopontin and bone metabolism: a histology and scintigraphy study in rats.

    International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery·2005
    Same author

    Anterior tooth morphology and its effect on torque.

    European journal of orthodontics·2005
    Same author

    The effect of changes in tooth position of unerupted canines on cephalograms.

    European journal of orthodontics·2003
    Same journal

    Recent advances in bacterial chemotherapy; the sulfonamides.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    Same journal

    Factors modifying head form in man.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    Same journal

    The advisability of extraction as a therapeutic aid in orthodontics; affirmative.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    Same journal

    Lesions of the mandible; secondary carcinoma of the mandible.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    Same journal

    Salivary gland tumors.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    Same journal

    Extensive ameloblastoma.

    American journal of orthodontics·2010
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Dentistry
    • Orthodontics
    • Facial Aesthetics

    Background:

    • Facial profile aesthetics are complex, influenced by multiple skeletal and soft-tissue features.
    • The relative importance of anteroposterior (AP) relationships, lower facial height (LFH), and nasal dorsum form in profile preference remains debated.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate the influence of AP maxillomandibular relations, LFH, and nose dorsum form on facial profile esthetic preferences.
    • To determine which facial profile types are most and least preferred aesthetically.

    Main Methods:

    • Constructed 27 artificial profile photographs combining Sassouni's nine profile types with three nose dorsum variations.
    • Collected esthetic preference rankings from 249 adults (mean age 23) with and without orthodontic training.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Analyzed data using Chi-square tests and Kendall's rank correlation for significance and reliability.

    • Main Results:

    • Class I normal and Class I deep profiles were most preferred; open profiles were least preferred.
    • Nose dorsum convexity negatively impacted preference, particularly in Class II normal profiles.
    • Participant sex and orthodontic knowledge did not significantly affect profile preference.
    • Retest reliability showed one in four participants ranked profiles differently after seven weeks.

    Conclusions:

    • Vertical facial characteristics (LFH) appear more critical than AP features in esthetic profile evaluation.
    • A lengthened soft-tissue profile is generally undesirable.
    • Profile esthetics are subjective, with moderate test-retest reliability observed.