METHODS: Two sets of 3-dimensional facial photographs (1 male and 1 female) each comprised 7 images that showed different dentoskeletal relations (ie, Class I, bimaxillary protrusion, bimaxillary retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion, and mandibular retrusion). The sets of photographs were shown to 101 laypersons (age, 28.87 ± 6.22 years) and 60 patients seeking orthognathic treatment (age, 27.12 ± 6.07 years). They rated their esthetic perceptions of the photographs on the basis of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (very unattractive) to 100 (very attractive).
RESULTS: The dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was ranked as the most attractive profile. Female orthognathic judges selected the retrusive maxilla while male orthognathic judges and male and female laypersons ranked the mandibular protrusion profile as the least attractive profile for both females and males. A bimaxillary protrusive female profile was viewed as more attractive by the orthognathic male (P = 0.006) and female (P = 0.006) judges, compared with female layperson judges. After adjustment for age, no statistically significant interaction between sex and judges (P >0.10) for all VAS scores were detected. For the female bimaxillary protrusive profile, orthognathic patient judges assigned a mean VAS score of 9.174 points higher than layperson judges (95% confidence interval, 3.11-15.24; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was generally considered the most attractive profile in both sexes; male and female orthognathic patients preferred a bimaxillary protrusive female profile. A concave facial profile was perceived as least attractive in both sexes.
Method: A sample of 80 individuals with three-dimensional facial images at rest and during speech were recorded. Subjects were asked to pronounce four bilabial words in a relaxed manner and scanned using the 3dMDFace™ Dynamic System at 48 frames per second. Six lip landmarks were identified at rest and the landmark displacement vectors for the frame of maximal lip movement for all six visemes were recorded. Principal component analysis was applied to isolate relationship between lip traits and their registered coordinates. Eight specific resting morphological lip traits were identified for each individual. The principal component (PC) scores for each viseme were labelled by lip morphological trait and were graphically visualized as ellipses to discriminate any differences in lip movement.
Results: The first five PCs accounted for up to 95% of the total variance in lip shape during movement, with PC1 accounting for at least 38%. There was no clear discrimination between PC1, PC2 and PC3 for any of the resting morphological lip traits.
Conclusion: Lip shapes during movement are more uniform between individuals and resting morphological lip shape does not influence movement of the lips.