Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Panel perception of facial appearance of cleft patients generated by use of a morphing technique

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Perception of the facial appearance of cleft patients has, until now, been evaluated on the basis of photographs of the patients. Research based on photographs generated by use of a morphing technique has not yet been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate female and male raters’ panel perception with regard to the following: (1) patient age, (2) attractiveness, (3) gender appearance, and (4) likeability of faces of cleft patients generated by the use of a morphing technique.

Setting

The study was conducted at the Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany.

Patients, participants

We used photographs of 32 adult German nonsyndromic cleft patients, mean age 18.9 ± 1.3 years, and surveyed 93 students, mean age 25.3 ± 3.2 years, by use of a standardized questionnaire.

Results

All respondents rated the mean age of cleft patients equally in unmorphed and morphed pictures. For all respondents, attractiveness of morphed patient pictures was rated significantly higher than for unmorphed pictures (mean 4.8 ± 1.0 vs. 6.4 ± 2.4; p < 0.001), although significance was reached only if morphed pictures of eight patients were rated. Female respondents rated attractiveness significantly higher than did males, especially for pictures of female patients.

Conclusion

Facial morphing of patient pictures is a suitable method for creation of standard cleft faces. Despite the modification of the pictures, the faces generated remain human and assessable by panel members. Perception of faces of cleft patients’ depended on raters’ gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray JC (1995) Face facts: genes, environment, and clefts. Am J Hum Genet 57:227–232, PMID: 7668246

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mastroiacovo P, Maraschini A, Leoncini E, Mosscy P, Bower C, Castilla EE, Feldkamp ML, Halliday J, Little J (2011) Prevalence at birth of cleft lip with or without cleft palate: data from the International Perinatal Database of Typical Oral Clefts (IPDTOC). Cleft Palate Craniofac J 48:66–81. doi:10.1597/09-217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Todorov A (2012) The role of the amygdala in face perception and evaluation. Motiv Emot 36:16–26. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9238-5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108:233–242. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rhodes G (2006) The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol 57:199–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1999) Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc Biol Sci 266:1913–1917, PMCID: PMC1690211

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broder HL, Smith FB, Strauss RP (1994) Effects of visible and invisible orofacial defects on self-perception and adjustment across developmental eras and gender. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 31:429–436, PMID: 7833334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Richman LC (1983) Self-reported social, speech, and facial concerns and personality adjustment of adolescents with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 20:108–112, PMID: 6573978

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turner SR, Rumsey N, Sandy JR (1998) Psychological aspects of cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod 20:407–415. doi:10.1093/ejo/20.4.407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyer-Marcotty P, Alpers GW, Gerdes AB, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2010) Impact of facial asymmetry in visual perception: a 3-dimensional data analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:168. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Macgregor FC (1951) Some psychological problems associated with facial deformities. Am Sociol Rev 16:629–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones BM, Gabe MJ, Shaw WC (1979) Experience of teasing and harassment in children attending plastic surgery clinics. Unpublished project report, Dental School, Welsh National School of Medicine, Cardiff, East Glamorgan, UK

  13. Shaw WC, Meek SC, Jones DS (1980) Nicknames, teasing, harassment and the salience of dental features among school children. Br J Orthod 7:75–80, PMID: 6932969

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Noar JH (1992) A questionnaire survey of attitudes and concerns of three professional groups involved in the cleft palate team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 29:92–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Noor SN, Musa S (2007) Assessment of patients’ level of satisfaction with cleft treatment using the Cleft Evaluation Profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 44:292–303, PMID: 17477746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pausch NC, Herzberg PY, Wirtz C, Hemprich A, Dhanuthai K, Hierl T, Pitak-Arnnop P (2011) German animal terms for oral cleft deformity: a Leipzig survey. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.025

    Google Scholar 

  17. Noar JH (1991) Questionnaire survey of attitudes and concerns of patients with cleft lip and palate and their parents. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28:279–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Feragen KB, Kvalem IL, Rumsey N, Borge AI (2010) Adolescents with and without a facial difference: the role of friendships and social acceptance in perceptions of appearance and emotional resilience. Body Image 7:271–279, ISSN 1740–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Meyer-Marcotty P, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2009) Dentofacial self-perception and social perception of adults with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop 70:224–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Foo P, Sampson W, Roberts R, Jamieson L, David D (2011) Facial aesthetics and perceived need for further treatment among adults with repaired cleft as assessed by cleft team professionals and laypersons. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roberts-Harry DP, Hathorn IS, Stephens CD (1992) The ranking of facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 14:483–488. doi:10.1093/ejo/14.6.483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rhodes G, Tremewan T (1996) Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci 7:105–110. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00338.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karimi K, Devcic Z, Avila D, Popenko N, Wong B (2010) A new approach in determining lateral facial attractiveness. Laryngoscope 120(Suppl 4):S157. doi:10.1002/lary.21621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morar A, Stein E (2011) A method of assessing facial profile attractiveness and its application in comparing the aesthetic preferences of two samples of South Africans. J Orthod 38:99–106. doi:10.1179/14653121141326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Steyvers M (1999) Morphing techniques for manipulating face images. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31:359–369. doi:10.3758/BF03207733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamilton GS III (2010) Morphing images to demonstrate potential surgical outcomes. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am 18:267–282. doi:10.1016/j.fsc.2010.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Perret DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S (1994) Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature 368:239–242. doi:10.1038/368239a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beier T, Neely S (1992) Feature-based image metamorphosis. Computer Graphics. doi:10.1145/133994.134003, pp. 35–42

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chen DT, Banks D (1996) Interactive shape metamorphosis. Unpublished manuscript.

  30. Grundl M, Eisenmann-Klein M, Prantl L (2009) Quantifying female bodily attractiveness by a statistical analysis of body measurements. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1064–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hasel LE, Wells GL (2007) Catching the bad guy: morphing composite faces helps. Law Hum Behav 31:193–207, PMID: 17053949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smythe DB (1990) A two-pass mesh warping algorithm for object transformation and image interpolation. ILM Tech Rep 1030

  33. Wolberg G (1990) Digital image warping. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  34. Braun C, Gruendl M, Marberger C, Scherber C (2001) Beautycheck - Ursachen und Folgen von Attraktivitaet.

  35. Fisher ML (2004) Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci 271(Suppl 5):S283–S285. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0160

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd L, Debruine LM, Feinberg DR, Smith MJ, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Perrett DI (2005) Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Horm Behav 48:283–290, PMID: 15979620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Geron S, Atalia W (2005) Influence of sex on the perception of oral and smile esthetics with different gingival display and incisal plane inclination. Angle Orthod 75:778–784

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lorenzo GL, Biesanz JC, Human LJ (2010) What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood. Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychol Sci 21:1777–1782. doi:10.1177/0956797610388048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR (1985) The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 87:21–26, PMID: 3855347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Asher-McDade C, Roberts C, Shaw WC, Gallager C (1991) Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28:385–390, PMID: 1742308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Reynolds JK, Pezdek K (1992) Face recognition memory: the effects of exposure duration and encoding instruction. Appl Cogn Psychol 6:279–292. doi:10.1002/acp.2350060402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1993) Human facial beauty. Averageness, symmetry and parasite resistance. Hum Nat 33:237–269, PMID: 24214366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schendel S, Montgomery K, Sorokin A, Lionetti G (2005) A surgical simulator for planning and performing repair of cleft lips. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33:223–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tanaka D, Kobayashi M, Fujino T, Nakajima T, Chiyokura H (2001) A computer-aided cleft lip simulation surgery system. Keio J Med 50(Suppl 2):121–127, PMID: 11584502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Vedat Yildirim, Alexander Hemprich & Niels Christian Pausch

  2. Institute for Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Martin Gründl

Authors
  1. Vedat Yildirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Hemprich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Gründl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Niels Christian Pausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vedat Yildirim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yildirim, V., Hemprich, A., Gründl, M. et al. Panel perception of facial appearance of cleft patients generated by use of a morphing technique. Oral Maxillofac Surg 18, 331–340 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-014-0441-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-014-0441-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation