MOST AESTHETIC FACIAL PROFILE SELECTED BY ROMANIAN YOUNG ADULTS


Magdalena Enache, Roxana Luţic, Filip Boeru, Sînziana Constantinescu, Dan-Alexandru Mărîi
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dental Medicine,
University of Medicine and Pharmacy,”C.Davila” Bucharest, Romania

The soft tissue paradigm has a leading part in modern orthodontic diagnosis and The most attractive female profile was:
treatment. It is a matter of the utmost importance and it must be taken into
• the slightly convex profile (female profile number 4, with a value of SNB-3º,
consideration under every circumstance when deciding upon treatment objectives.
Determining which profile is the most pleasant amongst people in Romania helps local with a total score of 606, rated with the maximum score 8 in of 34,44 % of
orthodontists establish the treatment objectives in a more accurate way. cases and the score 7 in 36,66 % of cases, in all three groups);
What is considered attractive can vary by culture, sex, education, age or race. The The least attractive female profile was:
lip position, the soft tissue profile and the aspect of the chin are important variables of • the most concave female profile (female profile number 8, with a value of
profile attractiveness, but there are few studies that evaluate how these can influence normal SNB-9º, that was rated with the minimum score 1 in the highest
the overall facial attractiveness.
percentage (64,44%).
Aim: to study the facial profile perception (for Romanian males and females) by
The maximum mean value for all the female profiles from all three groups was
dentists, people with a background in art and laypersons.
7.2 +/- 1.91 SD for female profile 5 in the female laypersons group.
Material and method: a pilot study was conducted, using the profile photographs of
two postpubertal patients (a female and a male patient) in order to obtain digital
images of the profile, modifying the anteroposterior position of the mandible by one
unit (3 degrees of SNB). We obtained 4 convex profiles (decreasing SNB angle by 3,
6, 9 and 12 degrees) and 3 straight/concave profiles (increasing SNB angle by 3, 6 and
9 degrees).
Silhouettes were preferred instead of photographs, and they were positioned in
random order, so that the respondents' perception would not be distracted by factors
such as skin texture, colour or anything else that could defy the aim of our study.
The program used to obtain the black silhouettes on white background was Adobe
Photoshop 5.0 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, Calif.).

Figure 3. Chart of ranking scores given for the male profiles

Figure 1. Digital images of male profiles

Figure 4. Chart of ranking scores given for the female profiles

Discussions: the soft tissue profile analysis is extremely important for

orthodontists because the movement of the teeth on the basal bone may alter the
profile, including lip position, nasolabial and labiomental angles.[6]
Only the anteroposterior position of the mandible was modified on the two
profiles. We considered also modifying the anteroposterior position of the maxilla
for a more complete assessment of the aesthetics of the profile [1], but we decided
against it because the distinction between the silhouettes would have been harder
to establish by the respondents. To achieve the aim of the study we had to simplify
the choice by rendering the variables to a minimum. Also, the statistical analysis
shows that the respondents did not use scientific criteria to compare the profiles,
therefore a statistically significant difference was encountered among almost all
groups and sexes.
Figure 2. Digital images of female profiles The variation between profile norms in different sides of the world can be quite
large, which is why orthodontists need to be able to rely on local data. This study
The anteroposterior position of the maxilla, assessed on cephalometric X-ray by is one of very few made upon this subject in the world and it is, without prior,
SNA angle, was normal and the same for all digital images. The facial profile was made on Romanian population.
analysed by three groups (dentists, people with a background in art and laypersons, In comparison with the Japanese population, where a bimaxillary protrusion is
aged 20-35 years,) who rated each digital image with a score, on a scale from 1 to 8. considered to have a high attractiveness rate [4], the result of our study showed
Each group was comprised of 15 male and 15 female respondents. that Romanians consider the slightly convex female profile to be the most
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine statistically significant attractive. In another similar study, white orthodontists, dental students, and
differences in mean responses for the facial profile perception among the Romanian laypersons demonstrated similar trends in ranking Asian-Chinese profiles [2].
young adults, for each image and for each sex, respectively. Meanwhile, a study that compared the perception of Caucasians and Mexican-
Results: according to the variance analysis, (oneway ANOVA, p<0,0001) there were Americans [1] concluded that the latter preferred lips to be less protrusive in
statistically significant differences among almost all groups and sexes.
The most attractive male profile was:
females.
• the normal profile (male profile number 5, with a normal SNB,with a total Conclusion:
score of 617 points,that was rated with the maximum score 8 in the highest • The most attractive male profile was the one with normal SNB angle, the least
percentage (44,44%);
The least attractive male profile was: attractive being the most convex.
• the most convex male profile (male profile number 1, with a value of normal • The most attractive female profile was the slightly convex profile (normal
SNB-12º, that was rated with the minimum score 1 in the highest percentage SNB-3º), the least attractive being the most concave.
(62,22%).
The maximum mean value for all the male profiles from all three groups was 7.13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
+/- 2.19 standard deviation (SD) for male profile 5 in the female laypersons group. We would like to thank Dr. Andreea Didilescu, DDS, PhD, Dr.Hab, Associate
Professor, for the statistical analysis.
Selected references:
1. Mejia-Maidl M, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, Giddon DB. Preferences for facial profiles between Mexican Americans and Caucasians. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 953-8
2. Chan EKM, Soh J, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Esthetic evaluation of Asian-Chinese profiles from a white perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 532-8
3. Ioi H, Shimomura T, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 490-5
4. Kuroda S, Sugahara T, Takabatake S, Taketa H, Ando R, Takano-Yamamoto T. Influence of anteroposterior mandibulat positions on facial attractiveness in Japanese adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 73-8
5. Cala L, Spalj S, Slaj M, Lapter MV, Slaj M. Facial profile preferences: differences in the perception of children with and without orthodontic history. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 442-50
6. Pithona MM, Silvab ISN, Almeidab IO, Soares NerybM, de Souzab ML, Barbosac G, Ferreira dos Santosd A, da Silva Coqueiroe R. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of profile esthetics between white and black evaluators. Angle Orthod 2014; 84(2):231-8.