International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2011 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Perception of Facial Profile: How You Feel About Yourself

Mridula Trehan, Zuber Ahamed Naqvi

Keywords : Facial profile, Perception, Esthetics

Citation Information : Trehan M, Naqvi ZA. Perception of Facial Profile: How You Feel About Yourself. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011; 4 (2):109-111.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1092

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


Objective: The aim of this study was to determine how aware the individuals were of their own profile and to compare the orthodontist's perception of an attractive facial profile with those of laypeople, dental students and orthodontic patients. Materials and methods: The study comprised of a total of 200 subjects divided into four groups of 50 subjects each: Laypeople, first-year dental students, final-year dental students and orthodontic patients. Participants answered a questionnaire regarding facial profile and their expectations from orthodontic treatment. The facial profile photographs of participants were analyzed by two orthodontists separately who matched the individual to the depicted silhouettes. Agreement between participants and orthodontists was evaluated by using the statistic χ2 test. Results: Dental students and orthodontic patients were more aware of their facial profile as compared to the laypeople. The four groups were different in their abilities to recognize their own profiles. The difference in profile perception between orthodontists and subjects was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Class I profiles were perceived to be the most attractive by all the groups and profiles with a protrusive mandible were perceived to be the least attractive. Final-year dental students and orthodontic patients were more accurate in identifying their own profile.

PDF Share
  1. Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics (3rd ed), Chicago 1973, Mosby – year book.
  2. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty: A meta analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2000;126;390-423.
  3. Alley TR, Hildebrandt KA. Determinants and consequences of facial esthetics. In: Alley TR (Ed). Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988:101-40.
  4. Baldwin DC. Appearance and aesthetics in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;8:244-56.
  5. Shaw WC, Meek SC, Jones SH. Nicknames, teasing, harassment and the salience of dental features among school children. Br J Orthod 1980;7:75-80.
  6. Heldt L. Haffke EA, Davis LF. The psychological and social aspects of othognathic treatment. Am J Orthod 1982;82: 318-28.
  7. Carlos Flores-Mir, Eduardo Silva, Maria I Barriga, Renzo H. Valverde, Manuel O Lagravere, Paul W Major. Layperson's perception of the esthetics of visible anterior occlusion. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:849.
  8. Soh Jen, Chew Ming Tak, Wong Hwee Bee. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. AJO-DO 2005;127:692-99.
  9. Milosevic, Sandra Anic, Varga, Marina Lapter, Slaj, Mladen. Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Croatians using of linear measurements. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 2008; 19:251-58.
  10. Phillips C, Tulloch, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:214-20.
  11. Brisman A. Esthetics: A comparison of dentists’ and patients’ concepts. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:345-52.
  12. Tufekci Eser, Jahangiri Arousha, Steven J Lindauer. Perception of profile among laypeople. Dental Students and Orthodontic Patients. Angle orthod 2008;78:983.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.