Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of malocclusions on facial attractiveness and their correlations with the divine proportion

Auswirkungen von Malokklusionen auf die Gesichtsattraktivität und Korrelationen mit den Proportionen des Goldenen Schnitts

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of malocclusions on facial attractiveness and to determine if it was correlated with the divine proportion.

Methods

Standard frontal facial photos were taken from 335 subjects in natural head position. Facial attractiveness of the subjects was evaluated by 10 dental students using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS). All of the evaluations were arranged in order, and 30 attractive subjects with the highest score and 30 nonattractive subjects having the lowest score were chosen. On the frontal photos of these subjects, 13 landmarks were determined and 12 ratios were measured. Two way ANOVA was used to determine the effects of malocclusions on facial attractiveness, Student’s t test was used to compare the facial proportions of the attractive and nonattractive subjects, and one sample t test was used to define the relationships between the divine proportion and facial ratios.

Results

No statistically significant difference was found between malocclusion groups in terms of facial attractiveness. Of the 12 facial ratios, significant differences were found between attractive and nonattractive subjects regarding trichion-menton/nasion-menton, subnasale-menton/stomion-menton, nasion-subnasale/stomion-menton, nasion-subnasale/nasal width, and trichion-menton/right-left frontotemporale ratios. All of the ratios except nasion-subnasale/stomion-menton in the attractive group and subnasale-menton/stomion-menton and nasion-menton/nasion-trichion in the nonattractive group were found to be different from the divine proportion.

Conclusions

Sagittal skeletal malocclusions evaluated by ANB angle are not effective on facial attractiveness. Facial ratios used in this study have little effect on attractiveness, and are different from the divine proportion.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Evaluiert werden sollten die Auswirkungen von Malokklusionen auf die Gesichtsattraktivität. Ferner sollte bestimmt werden, ob Korrelationen mit dem Goldenen Schnitt bestehen.

Methoden

Von 335 Individuen wurden Standardportraitfotos in natürlicher Kopfposition angefertigt. Die Gesichtsattraktivität wurde von 10 Zahnmedizinstudenten mit einer 10-Punkte-VAS (visuelle Analogskala) bewertet und in eine Rangfolge geordnet. Die 30 attraktivsten Individuen mit den höchsten und die 30 nichtattraktiven Individuen mit den niedrigsten Scores wurden in die Studie aufgenommen. Auf den en-face Aufnahmen dieser Teilnehmenden wurden 13 Referenzpunkte und 12 Verhältniswerte bestimmt. Um die Effekte von Malokklusionen auf die Gesichtsattraktivität zu evaluieren, wurde eine Varianzanalyse (ANOVA) durchgeführt, zum Vergleich von attraktiven und nichtattraktiven Individuen der Student-t-Test und zur Definition der Beziehungen zwischen Goldenem Schnitt und fazialen Verhältniswerten der Einstichproben-t-Test.

Ergebnisse

Zwischen den Gruppen mit Malokklusionen fand sich kein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied hinsichtlich der Gesichtsattraktivität. Signifikante Unterschiede zwischen den attraktiven und nichtattraktiven Teilnehmenden wurden bei den folgenden der 12 Verhältnisse in den Gesichtsproportionen ermittelt: Trichion-Menton/Nasion-Menton, Subnasale-Menton/Stomion-Menton, Nasion-Subnasale/Stomion-Menton, Nasion-Subnasale/Nasenbreite und Trichion-Menton/rechts-linke frontotemporale Verhältnisse. Alle Verhältniswerte – mit Ausnahme von Nasion-Subnasale/Stomion-Menton in der Gruppe mit attraktiven und Subnasale-Menton/Stomion-Menton und Nasion-Menton/Nasion-Trichion in der Gruppe mit nichtattraktiven Teilnehmenden – erwiesen sich als nicht den Proportionen des Goldenen Schnitts entsprechend.

Schlussfolgerungen

Sagittale skelettale Malokklusionen, evaluiert mittels ANB-Winkel, haben keine Auswirkung auf die Gesichtsattraktivität. Die in dieser Studie untersuchten fazialen Verhältnisse stehen nicht im Zusammenhang mit Attraktivität und unterscheiden sich von den Proportionen des Goldenen Schnitts.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angle EH (1899) Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 41:248–264

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnett GW, Bergman RT (1993) Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:299–312. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker BW, Woods MG (2001) The role of the divine proportion in the esthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment. The Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 16:108–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Bassat Y, Dinte A, Brin I, Koyoumdjisky-Kaye E (1992) Cephalometric pattern of Jewish East European adolescents with clinically acceptable occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 102:443–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bishara SE, Abdalla EM, Hoppens BJ (1990) Cephalometric comparisons of dentofacial parameters between Egyptian and North American adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 97:413–421. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(90)70113-Q

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Smit A, Dermaut L (1984) Soft-tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 86:67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Tartaglia G (1993) Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:327–337. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(93)70013-E

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Tartaglia G (1995) Facial morphometry of television actresses compared with normal women. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:1008–1014 (discussion 1014–1005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Herzberg BL (1952) Facial esthetics in relation to orthodontic treatment. Angel Orthod 22:9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Holdaway RA (1983) A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod 84:1–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Howells DJ, Shaw WC (1985) The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod 88:402–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hungerford MW (1890) Molly Bawn. Smith, Elder and Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jefferson Y (2004) Facial beauty-establishing a universal standard. Int J Orthod 15:9–22

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kawakami S, Tsukada S, Hayashi H, Takada Y, Koubayashi S (1989) Golden proportion for maxillofacial surgery in orientals. Ann Plast Surg 23:417–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kerns LL, Silveira AM, Kerns DG, Regennitter FJ (1997) Esthetic preference of the frontal and profile views of the same smile. J Esthet Dent 9:76–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiekens RM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van’t Hof MA, van’t Hof BE, Maltha JC (2008) Putative golden proportions as predictors of facial esthetics in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:480–483. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koury ME, Epker BN (1992) Maxillofacial esthetics: anthropometrics of the maxillofacial region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:806–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lusterman EA (1963) The esthetics of the occidental face: a study of dentofacial morphology based upon anthropologic criteria. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 49:826–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Macias Gago AB, Romero Maroto M, Crego A (2012) The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population. Eur J Orthod 34:335–339. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletal Morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moorrees CF (1994) Natural head position—a revival. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 105:512–513. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70014-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Naini FB, Moss JP, Gill DS (2006) The enigma of facial beauty: esthetics, proportions, deformity, and controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:277–282. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040<0284:ACOFE>2.0.CO;2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Peron APLM, Morosini IC, Correia KR, Moresca R, Petrelli E (2012) Photometric study of divine proportion and its correlation with facial attractiveness. Dental Press J Orthod 17:124–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Phillips C, Beal KN (2009) Self-concept and the perception of facial appearance in children and adolescents seeking orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 79:12–16. doi:10.2319/071307-328.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Proffit WR (2000) The soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a new view for a new century. J Esthet Dent 12:46–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ricketts RM (1982) The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 81:351–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ricketts RM (1982) Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg 9:401–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodriguez GLC, Cambron ZH, Vargas RM (2014) Relationship between facial golden ratio and malocclusion in Mexican patients who attended the Orthodontics Clinic at Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Tecnológica de México during 2009 with facial aesthetics criteria evaluated with Marquardt mask. Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia 2:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ronchi P, Guariglia A (2011) Surgical orthodontic treatment of class III malocclusions. In: Naretto S (ed) Principles in contemporary orthodontics. In Tech, Rijeka, Croatia, p 419

  31. Rossetti A, De Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2013) The role of the golden proportion in the evaluation of facial esthetics. Angle Orthodt 83:801–808. doi:10.2319/111812-883.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, Grandi G, Binelli M, Ferrario VF (2009) Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive Italian women as compared to normal women. Angle Orthod 79:17–23. doi:10.2319/122707-605.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shell TL, Woods MG (2004) Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical class II treatment. Aust Orthod J 20:51–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Slakter MJ, Waltz KJ (1983) A dental-facial attractiveness scale. Part II. Consistency of perception. Am J Orthod 83:44–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tweed CH (1944) Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 42:22–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tweed CH (1954) Frankfort mandibular incisor angles in diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 24:121–169

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Atatürk Bulv. No: 27, Unkapanı, Fatih, Istanbul, 34083, Turkey

    Seden Akan (Assistant Professor), Ayse Gul Torgut (Research Assistant) & Hüsamettin Oktay (Professor and Chair)

Authors
  1. Seden Akan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayse Gul Torgut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hüsamettin Oktay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seden Akan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

S. Akan, A.G. Torgut, and H. Oktay declare that they have no conflicting interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Istanbul Medipol University institutional research committee (with the number of 108400987-96-85) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

This study was not funded by any company or commitee.

Additional information

Assistant Professor Seden Akan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akan, S., Torgut, A.G. & Oktay, H. Effects of malocclusions on facial attractiveness and their correlations with the divine proportion. J Orofac Orthop 78, 427–436 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0097-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0097-x

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation