ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A comparative assessment of the perception of
Chinese facial profile esthetics
Jen Soh,a Ming Tak Chew,b and Hwee Bee Wongc
Singapore
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the perception of male and female Chinese facial profile
esthetics between dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons. Material: The sample comprised
31 dental professionals (20 orthodontists, 11 oral surgeons), 92 dental students, and 152 laypersons in an
Asian community. The facial profile photographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of a Chinese man
and a woman, each with a normal profile, a Class I incisor relationship, and a Class I skeletal pattern, were
digitized. The digital images were modified to obtain 7 facial profiles for each sex. The images were
constructed by altering cephalometric skeletal and dental hard tissue Chinese normative values by 2
standard deviations in the anteroposterior plane only. The 7 profiles were (1) bimaxillary protrusion, (2)
protrusive mandible, (3) retrusive mandible, (4) normal profile (Class I incisor with Class I skeletal pattern), (5)
retrusive maxilla, (6) protrusive maxilla, and (7) bimaxillary retrusion. Results: Normal and bimaxillary
retrusion Chinese male and female profiles were perceived to be highly attractive by all 3 groups. Profiles with
a protrusive mandible were perceived to be the least attractive. Dental professionals, dental students, and
laypersons were highly correlated for the perception of male (r ⬎ 0.67) and female (r ⬎ 0.93) profile esthetics.
All correlation coefficients were found to be significant for the perception of female profiles, but, for male
profiles, only the correlation coefficient between dental students and laypersons was significant. Conclusions: Chinese male and female profiles that were normal or had bimaxillary retrusion were perceived to be
highly attractive by dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons, and profiles with a protrusive
mandible were perceived to be the least attractive. Dental students and laypersons were more tolerant of a
male profile with a retrusive mandible than were dental professionals, and all groups were more tolerant of
bimaxillary protrusion in women than in men. Dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons had a
similar trend in male and female esthetic preferences. The perception of female profiles by all 3 groups was
highly and significantly correlated. Only the perception of male esthetics by dental students and laypersons
was not significantly correlated with dental professionals. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:692-9)
M
odern society has placed a strong emphasis
on physical attractiveness; facial esthetics is
an important attribute upon which opinions
and perceptions of character a
bility are
conceived.1-6 Researchers in cognitive science have
proposed that human perception of facial attractiveness
could be a biological impetus for mate selection in
human reproduction. Facial symmetry and average
proportion in women were found to be significant facial
features that influence the selection process by men,
whereas enhanced secondary male sexual characteristics were the primary feature that affected women’s
a
Assistant professor, Faculty of Dentistry, National University Hospital, Singapore
b
Consultant, National Dental Centre, Department of Orthodontics, Singapore
c
Biostatistician, Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Research Unit, Singapore
Reprint requests to: Dr Jen Soh, Faculty of Dentistry, National University
Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Main Building, Singapore 119 074; e-mail,
pndsj@nus.edu.sg.
Submitted, September 2003; revised and accepted, February 2004.
0889-5406/$30.00
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.018
692
choices.7-9 The results of these studies suggest that
population norms and sexual dimorphism were influential in the perception of facial attractiveness. Selfperception of dentofacial attractiveness is an important
patient factor in orthodontic treatment uptake.10-13 This
wa s most evident in adults who seek treatment.14,15 The
main motivation in adults who had undergone orthognathic surgery was the desire to improve facial esthetics.16-20 Arpino et al21 found that orthognathic surgery
patients were the least tolerant to deviations from the
preferred facial profile image as compared with clinicians. Self-perception of facial aesthetics did not always correlate with morphometric measurements such
as physical characteristics and cephalometric values.22-25 A recent study on the psychosocial effects of
orthognathic surgery concluded that orthognathic surgery patients generally had improvements in selfesteem, and body and facial image with better social
adjustment.26
The final goal of orthodontic treatment is to achieve
a harmonious dentofacial complex with a good skeletal,
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 6
dental, and soft tissue balance in function and esthetics.
A key aspect of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment
planning is soft tissue evaluation, which includes the
assessment of soft tissue-profile esthetics.27-33 Soft
tissue-profile changes associated with surgical and
nonsurgical orthodontic treatment have been studied
previously.34-39 Both orthodontists and oral surgeons
are involved in treatment that affects the facial profile,
and their perceptions of facial esthetics will influence
the treatment plan. Moreover, many surgical plans are
visualized in the anteroposterior plane through a conventional or computer-assisted cephalometric tracing
that predicts the soft tissue profile. Ackerman and
Proffit40 provided clinical guidelines for facial-profile
esthetics. As with all clinical judgments, an element of
subjectivity in one’s perception of an esthetic profile
would be expected. In addition, orthodontists’ and oral
surgeons’ perceptions of esthetics would be regarded as
the “gold standard” to which the treatment outcome
would be directed. However, the perceptions of patients
might not be consistent with those of clinicians,20 so
that patients’ subjective responses about facial esthetics
should be of interest to orthodontists and oral surgeons.
Such information could facilitate communication between clinicians and patients.
Previous methods used to assess facial profile
attractiveness included profile line drawings, silhouettes, facial photographs, and photographic transparencies.41-44 Kerr and O’Donnell44 found that subjects
with Class I malocclusions were rated more facially
attractive than those with Class II Division 1 or Class
III malocclusions. In addition, art students and parents
were less critical in their assessments than orthodontists
and dental students. The study by Phillips et al43 on the
perception of facial attractiveness of white women
found that skeletal Class I patients were ranked the
most attractive, whereas Class II patients who opted for
orthognathic surgery were ranked the least attractive.
The Class II patients also perceived themselves to be
less attractive. There was good agreement in the ranking trend among patients, peers, and clinicians. Recent
studies have used software programs for cephalometric
analysis and surgical prediction to generate digitized
facial photographs for research on facial esthetics
assessment. Maganzini et al45 found that native Chinese
laypersons considered male profiles with either dental
retrusion or bimaxillary protrusion in a balanced skeletal relationship to be equally attractive. The Chinese
female profile with maxillary retrusion was found to be
as attractive as a skeletal Class I profile with Chinese
cephalometric norms. Male and female profiles with
either a retrognathic or a prognathic mandible were
found to be unattractive. A study by Mantzikos46 on the
Soh, Chew, and Wong 693
Japanese population found that a straight profile was
ranked the best, and mandibular retrognathic and prognathic profiles were ranked poorly. Lew et al47 studied
the facial profile preferences of Asian teenagers and
found that orthognathic and mandibular prognathic
profiles were ranked the best and worst, respectively.
Cochrane et al48 compared the perceptions between
clinicians, dental students, and the public in a white
community. Significant differences in the perceptions
of the 3 groups were found, with a greater tendency for
clinicians to rank a skeletal Class I profile as the most
attractive. The study by Spyropoulos and Halazonetis49
concluded that the perception of facial attractiveness
was affected by soft tissue outline form, with good
correlation between laypersons and orthodontists.
However, orthodontists tended to give higher rating
scores than laypersons.
The aim of this study was to compare the perceptions of male and female Chinese facial profile esthetics
between dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The sample consisted of 31 dental professionals (20
orthodontists, 11 oral surgeons), 92 dental students, and
152 laypersons from an Asian community. The laypersons were well educated and not employed in hospitals.
Table I describes the characteristics of the total sample.
Profile 35-mm slides of a Chinese man and a
Chinese woman with Class I occlusions and normal
Chinese cephalometric values50 were scanned by using
a Coolscan III film scanner (1350 pixels/in, 3669 x
2273 pixels, Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). Adobe Photoshop
(version 7.0, San Jose, Calif) was used to convert the
color image into a gray scale. Lateral cephalograms of
the 2 subjects taken with natural head posture were
scanned by using an Epson Twain Pro backlit scanner
(150 pixels/in, 884 x 1231 pixels, Seiko, Nagano,
Japan). The lateral cephalogram and profile image of
each subject were sized and matched by using computer-assisted simulation system for orthognathic surgery
(CASSOS) 2001 cephalometric software (SoftEnable
Technology, Hong Kong). The original images (M4 of
Fig 1, F5 of Fig 2) with their respective lateral
cephalograms were later used to generate 6 other
manipulated images by altering the hard tissue cephalometric normative values by at least 2 standard deviations. The facial profile images were digitally manipulated in the anteroposterior plane with little or no
changes to the vertical plane. This was carried out so
that each generated profile had a normal vertical proportion. These 7 profiles accounted for the possible
anteroposterior growth variations of the maxilla and
694 Soh, Chew, and Wong
Table I.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 2005
Demographic data by groups
Characteristic
Race
Chinese
Non-Chinese
Sex
Male
Female
Age (years)
Mean (SD)
Median
Range
Dental
professionals
(n ⫽ 31)
Dental
students
(n ⫽ 92)
Laypersons
(n ⫽ 152)
30 (96.8%)
1 (3.2%)
87 (94.6%)
5 (5.4%)
97 (63.8%)
55 (36.2%)
16 (51.6%)
15 (48.4%)
54 (58.7%)
38 (45.2%)
37 (24.3%)
115 (75.7%)
33.8 (6.0)
32.0
25.0-49.0
22.5 (1.5)
22.0
20.0-26.0
24.5 (4.4)
23.0
19.0-41.0
mandible as well as the bimaxillary protrusive profile
typically seen in Chinese subjects and the bimaxillary
retrusive profile, which is the straight profile usually
seen in white subjects. Each image had only 1 skeletal
or bimaxillary dental component manipulated. The
Chinese male and female profiles are as follows: M1
and F3 (bimaxillary protrusion) represented profiles
having advanced maxillary and mandibular anterior
alveolar segments with increased maxillary and mandibular incisal inclination to produce upper and lower
lip protrusion without altering the anteroposterior position of the mandible. M2 and F4 (protrusive mandible) represented profiles with anterior advancement of
the mandible only. M3 and F1 (retrusive mandible)
represented profiles with posterior positioning of the
mandible only. M4 and F5 (normal profile) represented
normal Chinese profiles with skeletal Class I basal
relationships and Class I incisors with average normative cephalometric values. They were used as the
templates from which the other 6 profiles were derived.
M5 and F2 (retrusive maxilla) were digitally constructed profiles with posterior positioning of the maxilla only. M6 and F6 (protrusive maxilla) were digitally
constructed profiles with anteriorly advanced maxillae
only. M7 and F7 (bimaxillary retrusion) were digitally
constructed to represent flatter profiles with upright
maxillary and mandibular incisors and less protrusive
anterior alveolar segments resembling white profile
features.
The participants were asked to rank the 7 profiles of
each sex on a scale of 1 (very attractive) to 7 (least
attractive) without any repeat of rank at the same
session. The 7 profiles of each sex were placed sideby-side for assessment at the same session. The participants were also asked which feature of the profile was
most influential in their overall ranking by selecting 1
of these choices: (1) forehead, (2) nose, (3) upper lip,
(4) lower lip, (5) chin, (6) upper and lower lip, and (7)
upper lip, lower lip, and chin.
All statistical analyses were carried out by using
SPSS (Version 11.0, SPSS, Chicago, Ill). Rank scores
given by dental professionals, dental students, and
laypersons for each profile were compared with
Kruskal-Wallis tests. Pair-wise comparisons were performed with Mann-Whitney U tests (compared with an
adjusted P value of .0167, Bonferroni adjustment technique). Mean ranks for each profile were also calculated. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used
to determine the similarity between the perceptions of
dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons.
Statistical significance was set at P ⬍ .05 unless
otherwise adjusted.
RESULTS
Table I gives the demographic data of our study. Of
the 275 participants, 77.8% were Chinese and 61.1%
were women. The mean (SD) age of the participants
was 24.9 (5.1) years. “Upper lip, lower lip, and chin”
was chosen by the majority (61.7%) as the most
influential feature of the profile in their overall ranking,
as shown in Table II. The mean ranks of dental
professionals (DP), dental students (DS), and laypersons (LP) for the profiles are shown in Table III.
Of the male profiles, the normal profile (M4) and
the protrusive mandible (M2) were ranked the most
and least attractive, respectively, by all 3 groups.
There was no significant difference in the rank scores
for bimaxillary protrusion (M1), retrusive maxilla
(M5), and protrusive maxilla (M6). Significant differences were found in the rank scores for protrusive
mandible (M2), retrusive mandible (M3), normal
profile (M4), and bimaxillary retrusion (M7, P ⬍
.001). Pair-wise comparisons showed that DS ranked
M2 marginally worse than DP (P ⬍ .001) and LP (P
⬍ .001). DP ranked M3 less attractive compared with
DS (P ⬍ .001) and LP (P ⬍ 0.001). DP (P ⫽ .001)
and DS (P ⫽ .001) ranked M4 slightly more attractive than LP, although all 3 groups found M4 to be
the most attractive in each group. DP ranked M7
more attractive when compared with DS (P ⬍ .001)
and LP (P ⬍ .001).
Among the female profiles, bimaxillary retrusion
(F7) was ranked the most attractive by DP and LP, and
the normal profile (F5) was ranked the most attractive
profile by DS. Protrusive mandible (F4) was ranked as
the least attractive profile by all 3 groups. There was no
significant difference in the rank scores for retrusive
mandible (F1), retrusive maxilla (F2), bimaxillary protrusion (F3), and normal profile (F5). Significant differences were found in the ranking of protrusive man-
Soh, Chew, and Wong 695
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 6
Fig 1. Male facial profiles: M1, bimaxillary protrusion; M2, protrusive mandible; M3, retrusive
mandible; M4, normal profile; M5, retrusive maxilla; M6, protrusive maxilla; M7, bimaxillary retrusion.
Fig 2. Female facial profiles: F1, retrusive mandible; F2, retrusive maxilla; F3, bimaxillary protrusion;
F4, protrusive mandible; F5, normal profile; F6, protrusive maxilla; F7, bimaxillary retrusion.
dible (F4) (P ⬍ .001), protrusive maxilla (F6) (P ⫽
.002), and bimaxillary retrusion (F7, P ⫽ .002). Pairwise comparison found that DP (P ⫽ .004) and DS (P
⬍ .001) ranked F4 less attractive than LP, although all
3 groups found F4 to be the least attractive. DS ranked
F6 more attractive than LP (P ⫽ .001). The mean rank
for F7 scored by DP was about 1 rank score lower than
DS (P ⬍ .001) and LP (P ⫽ .003), although all 3
groups ranked F7 on the attractive end of the ranking
scale.
High and positive correlations in the ranking of
male and female esthetics are shown in Table IV. The
correlation in the ranking of male esthetics was significant between DS and LP only (P ⬍ .001). However, all
the correlations in the ranking of female esthetics were
significant (P ⬍ .05).
DISCUSSION
Improvements in research methodology were made
in this study in contrast to the previous study by Lew et
al.47 Both studies were conducted on the same Asian
population, but at different times. Our study included
facial profiles of both sexes for assessment. In addition,
the generated profiles included images from manipulation of the maxilla, the mandible, or a dental component
to account for the different skeletal Class II and III
patterns with an isolated single jaw discrepancy. Facial
profiles with vertical disproportions were not included
because many surgical-orthodontic treatment plans
would normally include correction of vertical skeletal
discrepancies independent of patients’ main concerns.
Adult laypersons were chosen instead of teenagers
696 Soh, Chew, and Wong
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 2005
Table II. Most influential profile feature used for ranking facial profile esthetics
Feature
Upper face
Forehead
Nose
Lower face
Upper lip
Lower lip
Chin only
Upper and lower
lip
Upper and lower
lip and chin
Dental
professionals
(n ⫽ 31)
Dental
students
(n ⫽ 92)
Laypersons
(n ⫽ 152)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
6 (6.6%)
3 (2.0%)
24 (15.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (6.5%)
1 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (2.2%)
12 (13.2%)
10 (11.0%)
2 (1.3%)
4 (2.6%)
22 (14.5%)
17 (11.2%)
28 (90.3%)
61 (67.0%)
80 (52.6%)
because of the recent trend of more adults seeking
orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. Blackand-white digital images were developed to eliminate
any possible influence of skin and hair color. The
manipulated profile images were generated without
extreme anteroposterior hard tissue changes to provide
the more realistic soft tissue profiles encountered clinically. The order of arrangement was different between
the male and female profiles to prevent profile pattern
recognition during the assessment.
A straight profile (normal or bimaxillary retrusion)
of either sex was perceived to be the most attractive,
whereas mandibular prognathism was perceived to be
the least attractive by all 3 groups. The laypersons’
perceptions concurred with those of Mantzikos46 and
Lew et al47 regarding the extreme limits of facial
attractiveness. Normal and bimaxillary retrusion profiles of both the man (M4, M7) and the woman (F5, F7)
were ranked at the highly attractive end of the scale by
all 3 groups. This similarity in perception confirmed the
usual treatment objective of a straight profile, even for
Chinese patients. The mean ranks given to M4 by DP
and DS were found to be significantly lower when
compared with LP. This showed a tendency for DP and
DS to perceive M4 to be more attractive than did LP,
although all 3 groups generally ranked M4 most attractive. Similarly, there was a tendency for DP to rank M7
more attractive than DS or LP. This might reflect the
influence of the education of orthodontists and oral
surgeons to achieve facial profiles resembling white
features rather than Chinese norms.
A similar ranking pattern was also observed for the
bimaxillary retrusion female profile (F7), whereby DP
ranked it to be more attractive than DS or LP. It
suggests that DP considered bimaxillary retrusion an
attractive posttreatment profile for Chinese patients,
whereas LP might have considered such a profile to be
only acceptable. Does this mean that there could be a
tendency for Asian dental professionals to overcorrect
Chinese facial profiles regardless of sex? Could it be
that media exposure and overseas specialist training in
Western countries has influenced their perceptions? Is
there a cross-cultural effect on the perception of facial
attractiveness as concluded by other researchers?51,52 A
separate study on how Asian and white DP and LP
perceive facial attractiveness would be an interesting
follow-up.
For the protrusive mandible in males (M4), DS
gave a higher rank score than DP and LP. This could
mean that DP and LP are more tolerant to males with
protrusive mandible than DS. For the female equivalent
profile (F4), LP gave a lower rank score than DP (P ⫽
.004) and DS (P ⬍ .001), suggesting that LP might be
more tolerant of women with protrusive mandibles than
DP and DS. However, the margin of mean rank
difference was small and most likely of little clinical
significance for both sexes, because all 3 groups ranked
profiles with protrusive mandible to be the least attractive among the 7 profiles.
Limiting the manipulation to 1 jaw per image would
permit identifying whether a maxillary or a mandibular
problem was more critical in influencing the perception
of facial esthetics. It is obvious from this study that
profiles with mandibular protrusion or retrusion were
perceived to be less attractive than profiles with maxillary retrusion or protrusion (Table III). This finding
suggests that the position of the mandible is more
critical than that of the maxilla in evaluations by both
dental and nondental participants. Although a single
jaw discrepancy might not be commonly encountered
in actual clinical situations—many skeletal malocclusions involve both maxilla and mandible—this finding
suggests that the perception of a successful surgical
outcome might depend more on the corrected anteroposterior position of the mandible than that of the
maxilla in double-jaw surgeries. It is also obvious that
the male profile with bimaxillary protrusion was not
well received by all 3 groups. This is in contrast to the
findings by Maganzini et al,45 who found that the male
profile with skeletal bimaxillary protrusion was as
attractive as bimaxillary retrusion. The female profile
with bimaxillary protrusion was perceived to be slightly
more attractive than the male counterpart, based on the
lower mean rank given by the 3 groups. This finding
suggests that bimaxillary protrusion in Chinese women
is more esthetically acceptable than in Chinese men in
an Asian community.
An interesting finding was that DS and LP ranked a
male profile with retrusive mandible to be more attrac-
Soh, Chew, and Wong 697
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 6
Table III.
Mean ranks (SD) of male and female profiles given by dental professionals, dental students, and laypersons
Photograph
Male:
M1 (bimaxillary protrusion)
M2 (protrusive mandible)
M3 (retrusive mandible)
M4 (normal profile)
M5 (retrusive maxilla)
M6 (protrusive maxilla)
M7 (bimaxillary retrusion)
Female:
F1 (retrusive mandible)
F2 (retrusive maxilla)
F3 (bimaxillary protrusion)
F4 (protrusive mandible)
F5 (normal profile)
F6 (protrusive maxilla)
F7 (bimaxillary retrusion)
Dental professionals
(n ⫽ 31)
Dental students
(n ⫽ 92)
Laypersons
(n ⫽ 152)
P*
5.77 (0.80)
6.23 (0.88)
5.68 (1.19)
1.71 (0.86)
3.26 (1.09)
3.29 (1.19)
2.13 (1.20)
4.97 (1.67)
6.75 (0.79)
3.68 (1.71)
1.99 (1.24)
3.91 (1.46)
2.82 (1.35)
3.88 (1.50)
5.24 (1.71)
6.05 (1.58)
3.59 (1.78)
2.50 (1.32)
3.69 (1.76)
3.13 (1.56)
3.78 (1.78)
.106
⬍.001
⬍.001
⬍.001
.096
.152
⬍.001
5.81 (0.95)
4.80 (1.13)
4.32 (0.91)
6.61 (0.72)
1.93 (0.69)
3.00 (1.03)
1.45 (0.77)
5.03 (1.59)
5.28 (1.03)
3.75 (1.55)
6.45 (1.13)
2.33 (1.24)
2.76 (1.32)
2.44 (1.43)
4.87 (1.95)
5.03 (1.36)
3.90 (1.61)
5.81 (1.51)
2.53 (1.48)
3.45 (1.52)
2.41 (1.74)
.080
.182
.214
⬍.001
.272
.002
.002
*Rank scores were compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Table IV.
Spearman rank correlation coefficients of
mean rank for male and female profile esthetics
Male
Dental
Dental
Female
Dental
Dental
professionals
students
professionals
students
Dental students
0.714
1.00
0.929**
1.00
Laypersons
0.679
0.964*
0.964*
0.964*
*P ⬍ .001 (2-tailed).
**P ⫽ .003 (2-tailed).
tive than DP. This finding seems to contradict the
conclusions of psychosociologists that a well-developed mandible with a strong chin in men is a desirable
secondary sexual characteristic associated with good
facial attractiveness and preferred mate selection by
women.8,9 Does this result indicate a changing trend in
the perception of the male facial profile in an Asian
community? Does this mean that an Asian male profile
with an element of feminine facial features is currently
desirable from the public perspective? Penton-Voak et
al53 found that women’s preferences for male frontview facial features shifted during the menstrual cycle,
with less masculine male features preferred during the
low conception phases. Could the higher number of
female participants in the LP group have contributed to
the lower mean rank score? Could this hypothesis of
preference shift of women’s perception of male facial
attractiveness also be applied to facial profile preferences? Further research into this speculation might
prove interesting. A study by Cochrane et al48 found
that the Class II profile was generally perceived to be
the least attractive by DS and the public in a white
population. It was not the case with the Asian DS and
LP in our study. Such a contrasting result could be due
to cultural and ethnic factors that had influenced the
perception. Further investigation might confirm this
observation and might influence future treatment considerations, especially for male patients in multiracial
communities.
The perceptual trend of the female profiles by all 3
groups was highly correlated. This could mean that DP,
DS, and LP are more likely to agree on their perceptions of what an esthetic female profile should be. A
possible contribution to this finding is society’s exposure to media influences that often emphasize the
female physical form and face. In the assessment of
male profile esthetics, only DS and LP demonstrated a
high correlation. The correlations between DP and DS,
DP, and LP were found to be nonsignificant statistically. However, the correlation coefficient of DP with
DS was slightly higher than that of DP with LP,
suggesting that the perception of DS might have been
influenced by their dental education. The lack of
significant correlation in the perception of male esthetics between DP and the other sample groups suggests a
difference in how male profiles were perceived. This
has clinical implications in that DP might have different
esthetic criteria than others.
CONCLUSIONS
Normal and bimaxillary retrusive profiles were
perceived to be highly attractive in Chinese adults by
DP, DS, and LP. Chinese male and female profiles
with protrusive mandibles were perceived to be the
least attractive by all 3 groups. DS and LP were more
698 Soh, Chew, and Wong
tolerant of the Chinese male profile with a retrusive
mandible than were the DP. Bimaxillary protrusion
was better received in Chinese female profiles than in
Chinese male profiles. DP, DS, and LP displayed a
similar trend in their perceptions of male and female
esthetics. The perception of female profiles by all 3
groups was highly and significantly correlated. Only
the perception of male esthetics by DS and LP was
not significantly correlated with that of DP.
We thank Miss Avery Li for assistance in data
entry, the orthodontists and oral surgeons from the
Faculty of Dentistry (National University of Singapore), National University Hospital (Singapore), National Dental Centre (Singapore), and private practices,
and the dental students for their participation in this
study.
REFERENCES
1. Macgregor FC. Social and psychological implications of dentofacial disfigurement. Angle Orthod 1970;40:231-3.
2. Dion KK, Berschield E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J
Pers Soc Psychol 1972;24:285-90.
3. Clifford MM, Walster E. The effects of physical attractiveness
on teacher expectations. Sociol Edu 1973;46:248-58.
4. Shaw WC. The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on
their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J
Orthod 1981;79:399-415.
5. Bull RHC. Society’s reactions to facial disfigurements. Dent
Update 1990;17:202-5.
6. Tobiasen JM, Hiebert JM. Clefting and psychosocial adjustment.
Influence of facial aesthetics. Clin Plast Surg 1993;20:623-31.
7. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average.
Psychol Sci 1990;1:115-21.
8. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 1994;108;233-42.
9. Thornhill R, Gangestad, SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 1999;3:452-9.
10. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:151-62.
11. Gosney MBE. An investigation into some of the factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1986;
13:87-94.
12. Birkeland K, Bøe 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.
13. 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.
14. Salonen L, Mohlin B, Götzlinger B, Helldén L. Need and
demand for orthodontic treatment in an adult Swedish population. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:359-68.
15. Lew KK. Attitudes and perceptions of adults towards orthodontic
treatment in an Asian community. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol
1993;21:31-5.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 2005
16. 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;39:757-64.
17. Jacobson A. Psychological aspects of dentofacial aesthetics and
orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 1984;54:18-35.
18. Flanary CM, Barnwell GM, Alexander JM. Patient perceptions
of orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:137-45.
19. 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.
20. Rivera SM, Hatch JP, Dolce C, Bays RA, Van Sickels JE, Rugh
JD. Patients’ own reasons and patient-perceived recommendations for orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2000;118:134-40.
21. Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA, Evans CA. Presurgical
profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:631-7.
22. 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;88:323-32.
23. Maxwell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: a comparison of
patient self assessment techniques. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1991;6:123-31.
24. Wilmot JJ, Barber HD, Chou DG, Vig KWL. Associations
between severity of dentofacial deformity and motivation for
orthodontic-orthognathic surgery treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;
63:283-8.
25. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and
perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:8293.
26. Hunt OT, Johnston CD, Hepper PG, Burden DJ. The psychosocial impact of orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:490-7.
27. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue
paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin
Orthod Res 1999;2:49-52.
28. Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:373-89.
29. 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;116:239-53.
30. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis
and treatment planning: part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1993;103:395-411.
31. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis
and treatment planning: part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1993;103:299-312.
32. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in
orthodontic treatment planning: part II. Am J Orthod 1984;85:
279-93.
33. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in
orthodontic treatment planning: part I. Am J Orthod 1983;84:128.
34. Bowman SJ, Johnston LE Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction
and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle
Orthod 2000;70:3-10.
35. James RD. A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction
and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998;114:265-76.
36. Bravo LA. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic
treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod 1994;64:
31-42.
Soh, Chew, and Wong 699
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 6
37. Betts NJ, Dowd KF. Soft tissue changes associated with orthognathic surgery. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am
2000;8:13-38.
38. Hu J, Wang D, Luo S, Chen Y. Differences in soft tissue profile
changes after mandibular setback in Chinese men and women.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:1182-6.
39. Bailey LJ, Collie FM, White RP Jr. Long-term soft tissue
changes after orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996;11:7-18.
40. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR. Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics:
treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod 1997;67:327-36.
41. Maxwell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: a comparison of
patient self-assessment techniques. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1991;6:123-31.
42. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial aesthetics. Am J Orthod 1978;73:648-57.
43. Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers and professionals. Int J Adult Orthod
Orthognath Surg 1995;10:127-35.
44. Kerr WJS, O’Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304.
45. Maganzini AL, Tseng JYK, Epstein JZ. Perception of facial esthetics by native Chinese participants by using manipulated digital imagery techniques. Angle Orthod 2000;70:
393-9.
46. Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the
Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:
1-7.
47. Lew KK, Soh G, Loh E. Ranking of facial profiles among
Asians. J Esthet Dent 1992;4:128-30.
48. Cochrane SM, Cunningham SM, Hunt SP. A comparison of the
perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of
clinicians. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1999;14:291-5.
49. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of the soft tissue
profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2001;119:464-71.
50. Cooke MS, Wei SH. A comparative study of southern Chinese
and British Caucasian cephalometric standards. Angle Orthod
1989;59:131-8.
51. Berstein IH, Lin TD, McClellan P. Cross- vs. within-racial
judgements of attractiveness. Percept Psychophys 1982;32:495503.
52. Maret SM, Harling CA. Cross cultural perceptions of physical attractiveness: ratings of photographs of whites by
Cruzans and Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1985;
60:163-6.
53. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM,
Murray LK, et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature
1999;399:741-2.
ESTATE PLANNING & PLANNED GIVING
Estate Planning: The AAO Foundation offers information on estate planning to AAO
members and their advisors on a complimentary basis and at no obligation.
Planned giving: Persons who are contemplating a gift to the AAO Foundation through
their estates are asked to contact the AAOF before proceeding. Please call (800)
424-2481, extension 246.
Please remember the AAO Foundation in your estate planning.