Acceptable facial profiles in thai non-straight profile patients

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the acceptable facial profiles in non-straight profile patients. Gender difference was also considered to have an effect on the profiles. Orthodontists were also asked to find out the possible differences in patients' facial profile preferences. Materials and Methods: The patients' pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were traced. Soft tissue landmarks (G, A, Pg') were marked and facial contour angles (FCA) were measured. Fifty-eight patients were selected by a purposive sampling method and divided into 3 groups: concave, straight, and convex profiles according to Thai norms. Nineteen orthodontists were included in this study as the gold standard group. FaceGen Modeller 3.1.2 software was used to create the facial profile distortion. Eight constructed facial profiles of each sex were presented - 2 straight profiles and the other 6 facial profiles starting from decreased FCA to the most concave profile and vice versa, arranged in random order. As a result, the acceptable facial profile evaluation of the questionnaire comprised 4 pages: male concave profiles, male convex profiles, female concave profiles and female convex profiles. The subjects were asked to choose as many "acceptable facial profiles" as they wished. The subjects were also asked to evaluate their facial profiles. The frequency of each selected profile was used in the calculations. Results: The straight profile was the most popular facial profile and convex profiles were more acceptable than concave profiles if there was equal deviation from the straight profile for both subjects and orthodontists. Convex profile subjects accepted convex profiles equally or more than any other profile subjects while concave profile subjects tended not to accept severe concave profiles. Male profiles were more acceptable if deviating from normal. Male subjects could accept the severe concave profiles more than females. Non-straight profile subjects could assess themselves more accurately than those with straight profiles. Conclusion: The acceptable facial profiles of straight, convex and concave profile subjects were different. Overall, patients' acceptable profiles showed the same trend with orthodontists. The gender of the subject and of the facial profile affected what was considered an acceptable profile.