Perceptions of brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial individuals with regard to the buccal corridor in different facial types

Pithon, Matheus Melo; Mata, Kayure Rocha da; Rocha, Karina Silva; Costa, Brenda do Nascimento; Neves, Fernando; Barbosa, George; Coqueiro, Raildo da Silva

doi:10.1590/1678-775720140003

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rater's gender [ 16 , 30 ], age [ 9 ], education [ 9 ], self-perceived attractiveness [ 7 ], proficiency [ 32 ], and personal profile are influential in the scores of attractiveness. This needs to be considered while interpreting the results of our study; our participants were adult middle class participants and probably this limits our findings to this category…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It had been suggested that dentists and laypeople (but not orthodontists) preferred 2 mm gingival display with short face, but for the long face the orthodontist preferred 0 mm gingival display, while the dentists and laypeople preferred 2 mm gingival display [ 6 ]. On another attempt, it is been found that individuals with different facial types had a different perception in what constitute an attractive smile when it comes to buccal corridors [ 7 ]; candidates with mesofacial, dolichofacial, and brachyfacial faces found the mesofacial face more attractive, accepting buccal corridors range from 2 to 15%. We believe that facial types (mesofacial, dolichofacial, and brachyfacial) are thought to play a role in facial esthetics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of the Smile on the Perceived Facial Type Esthetics

Batwa

2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this study was to determine if the smile would influence the facial types esthetics perception for dentists, specialists, and laypeople. The null hypotheses for this study were that the smile has no effect on the perceived facial esthetics of different facial types. Materials and Method A photograph of an attractive female face with an attractive smile was captured and manipulated using computer software, which was used to produce changes in the smile and facial type of the female face. Two sets of photographs were developed. The first set is composed of three photos showing mesofacial, dolichofacial, and brachyfacial faces; on these photos the smiles were masked intentionally. On the second set, the smile was revealed in the three face types (mesofacial, dolichofacial, and brachyfacial faces); this results in three smiling photos, where each showed a facial type with the same smile. These photos (6 photos in total) were rated by the participants; two hundred participants were recruited, 50 general dentists, 50 specialist dentists, and 100 laypeople. Results The three groups (dentists, specialists, and laypeople) rated the mesofacial face as the highest (p value < 0.01) (64.48, 76.12, and 60.68, respectively), the mesofacial face was the only face that showed a significant difference between the three groups ratings (p value<0.01), and this significant difference disappeared when we compared the smiling photos for the mesofacial face (p value>0.01). Conclusion Mesofacial face is considered to be the most attractive face in comparison to dolichofacial and brachyfacial faces. Facial type should not be looked at separately from the smile as the smile might influence the esthetics perception of the facial type.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of the Smile on the Perceived Facial Type Esthetics

Batwa

2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9,16,17 Furthermore, in the literature, different judgments of smile attractiveness by different raters have been shown. 27,28,30,37 Some studies assessed in this regard 5 different sizes of BC (2%, 10%, 15%, 22%, and 28%) 17,35,36 and some others used 6 sizes (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%). 30,37 In our study, we constructed only 3 sizes of BC (2%, 15% and 28%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, regarding the facial type, some of the studies assessed just 2 facial types (short face and long face) 17 and some assessed 3 facial types. 36 We constructed 3 facial types (short face, normal face and long face) according to FI in order to compare smile attractiveness in each facial type.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The frontal posed smile view of 2 subjects (1 male and 1 female) who met the inclusion criteria was chosen for this study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: -complete incisors shown at smile (100%); -coordination between the upper dental arch and the curvature of the lower lip during the smile (consonant smile arch); -ideal anterior tooth alignment with no crowding and no spacing; -medium BC size (15% of the distance between the right and left commissures) 17,35,36 ; -normal (mesoprosopic) facial type (facial index (FI) = 84.0-87.9%). 34 The facial type of the subjects was determined using FI, which is the result of the division of the anterior face height (mm) by the bizygomatic width (mm).…”

Section: Image Series Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Smile attractiveness perception regarding buccal corridor size among different facial types

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The width of the buccal corridor (BC) is one of the factors affecting smile attractiveness. Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of the BC size on the smile attractiveness of individuals with short, normal and long faces from the viewpoint of laypersons, general dentists and orthodontists. Material and methods. Smiling photographs of male and female subjects who met the inclusion criteria were digitally altered to create 3 BC sizes (narrow: 2%; normal: 15%; wide: 28%) and 3 facial types defined by the facial index (FI) (short face: FI ≤ 83.9; normal face: 84.0 ≤ FI ≤ 87.9; long face: FI ≥ 88.0). Nine different combinations were made and the evaluators rated the overall attractiveness and acceptability of each smile on a 10-millimeter visual analog scale (VAS). Results. A total of 53 raters (22 laypersons, 16 general dentists and 15 orthodontists) participated in this study. The orthodontists and general dentists had similar viewpoints and they preferred narrow and normal BCs over the wide ones in all facial types. Laypersons preferred normal BC for normal faces, while they did not distinguish different BCs in short faces. Conclusions. Variations in the BC size affect smile attractiveness in different facial types and wide BCs are attributed to the least attractive smiles. Due to the different viewpoints of laypersons and professionals in this regard, there is no justification for expanding the maxillary arch to achieve more attractive smiles.

show abstract

Perceptions of orthodontists, laypersons, and patients regarding buccal corridors and facial types

Huang

Liu

et al. 2022

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptions of brachyfacial, mesofacial and dolichofacial individuals with regard to the buccal corridor in different facial types

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

The Influence of the Smile on the Perceived Facial Type Esthetics

The Influence of the Smile on the Perceived Facial Type Esthetics

Smile attractiveness perception regarding buccal corridor size among different facial types

Perceptions of orthodontists, laypersons, and patients regarding buccal corridors and facial types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About