Assessing the Influence of Chin-Throat Length on

Perceived Profile Attractiveness

MAJ Raquel Brentson, DDS, MS, Tri-Service Orthodontic Residency Program, Air Force Post
Graduate Dental School, 59th MDW, JBSA-Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA and Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences Postgraduate Dental College

LtCol Erin M. Speier, DMD, Tri-Service Orthodontic Residency Program, Air Force Post Graduate
Dental School, 59th MDW, JBSA-Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA

Abstract

Introduction: The submental-cervical angle is often considered an important esthetic parameter

when evaluating lower profile morphology, while the chin-throat (C-T) length has not traditionally

been considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perception of facial attractiveness

ratings of convex profiles with different C-T lengths. Methods: This investigation was a

questionnaire-based study to present a series of digitally manipulated images. Profile photos of a

Caucasian male and female subject were altered to similar skeletal class II facial convexity and the

C-T measurement from soft tissue menton to throat point was adjusted in 5mm increments from

8mm – 43mm. Survey participants included orthodontic clinicians, orthodontic patients and lay

people that rated the images on 100mm visual analogue scales (VASs). Results: There was an

overall direct linear relationship with the mean attractiveness rankings and C-T lengths.

Participants in all groups (total n=261) gave significantly higher rankings for the longer C-T

lengths (33-43mm) compared to the shorter C-T length profiles (8-23mm), and rankings were

significantly different (p < 0.001) for the various C-T lengths presented. In regards to surgical

intervention, all three observer groups expressed a significantly increased desire to elect surgical

correction of both the female and male profiles with the shortest C-T lengths (8-13mm).

Conclusions: Longer C-T lengths (33-43mm) rendered the skeletal class II profiles as more

esthetically acceptable for both the female and male subject presented. The chin-throat length
 2

does alter as a result of mandibular orthognathic surgery and should be considered more routinely

in diagnoses and treatment planning in addition to other standard facial angles. A surgical

treatment plan should be considered for patients with C-T lengths  13mm.

Keywords: Profile, Attractiveness, Orthodontics, Orthognathic surgery, Facial esthetics, Throat-

length, Chin-throat length
 3

Introduction:

The perception of a human face can elicit a wide array of emotional, physical and social

inferences.1 Likewise, the determination of facial attractiveness also affects a diverse range of

critical social implications ranging from friendships and mate selection, to an individual’s

occupational successes, confidence, judgements on intelligence, and may even influence election
1-3
results. Despite the complexities of facial attractiveness, extensive studies have shown that

there is not only a range of acceptability in various facial forms and traits, there is also

considerable agreement across diverse cultures on what is deemed attractive.1 This is likely due

to the fact that a fundamental attribute of an esthetically pleasing face, is one in which the

various facial features are well proportioned, balanced and relate well to other facial features,

whether viewed from the front or the side.4

Orthodontists plan treatment that can alter a patient’s facial appearance, whether through

orthodontics alone or a combination of orthodontics, growth modification, and orthognathic

surgery. As such, orthodontic training focuses on clinical abilities to not only identify

dentofacial deformities, but also on a thorough understanding of facial esthetics.5 Despite the aid

of numerous diagnostic cephalometric analyses and facial measurements developed over the

years, the point at which normal becomes abnormal cannot always be easily defined and is often
6
determined by the clinician’s sense of balance and the patient’s perception of imbalance.

However, patients’ perceptions of their own conditions can vary greatly and a rather mild

discrepancy can be perceived by the individual as severe enough that the psychosocial aspect can

be a significant motivator to seek treatment. With that said, patients may be unwilling to admit

their exact motives for treatment during a patient interview.7,8

 4

Several investigations have aimed to bridge the gap between clinician and patient

perceptions, by evaluating select facial angles or measurements and how they influence overall

profile attractiveness, among orthodontic clinicians, their patients, and the public. Some of the

facial parameters evaluated in these studies include: lip position, submental-cervical angle,

mentolabial angle, nasofacial angle, varying degrees of facial convexity, chin prominence, chin

height, lower face height and mandibular prominence.9-16 However, no studies were found that

addressed how changes in the chin-throat length could influence the esthetic perception of the

facial profile. While the submental-cervical angle is often considered during diagnosis as a key

parameter of lower face esthetics, the chin-throat length (C-T length), as viewed in the profile,

can also greatly impact the overall appearance of an individual, as it may influence the

perception of chin prominence.

The purpose of this study, was to qualitatively evaluate the effect that modified chin-

throat lengths have on the perception of facial attractiveness when assessing convex profiles

among orthodontists, orthodontic patients and laypersons. Additionally, this study aimed to

investigate the perception on the need or desire for corrective surgical procedures among these

groups for each profile presented. The null hypotheses to be investigated are: 1). There is no

difference in the perception of facial attractiveness ratings with different chin-throat lengths.

2). There is no difference in the perception of facial attractiveness ratings among the three groups

of orthodontic clinicians, orthodontic patients and laypersons. 3). There is no difference in the

perceived need for surgical correction among the three groups of survey participants when rating

the various profiles presented.

 5

Materials and Methods:

This investigation was an anonymous, one-time, questionnaire-based study utilizing a

digital survey platform (Survey Monkey, San Mateo, CA) to evaluate the effect of incremental

changes in the chin-throat length on the perceived attractiveness of convex facial profiles

consistent with skeletal class II mandibular deficiency. The target audience for participation in

this study was to compare responses by orthodontic clinicians, orthodontic patients, and

laypersons who were asked to rate the altered profile photos.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the 59th Medical Group

Wing, Air Force Post Graduate Dental School, JBSA-Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. In

accordance with Revised Common Rule, Section 219.116, a waiver of documentation for

informed consent was obtained. All survey participants agreed to an informational informed

consent presented at the start of the survey which indicated that proceeding to the next page for

the study to commence, thereby gave implied consent. The male and female subjects whose

photos were altered in the study signed photo release documentation and agreed to research

participation.

Image Creation

The images chosen for use in this study were selected from the existing patient

population with records in the Dolphin Imaging 11.95 database (Patterson Dental, Saint Paul,

MN), from the Air Force Post Graduate Dental School, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio,

Texas. The selection criteria included both a male and female patient of similar race/ethnicity,

and similar age with existing right lateral profile photos and lateral cephalometric tracings on

file. Patients that seemed too young in appearance that could be perceived as still undergoing jaw
 6

growth and development were excluded. Once subjects were chosen, updated profile photos

were taken for the purpose of this study to ensure limited distractors such as eccentric hair-styles,

facial hair or make-up, and to achieve optimal lighting.

To further standardize the evaluation, both patient images were then altered in the lower

third to portray similar class II skeletal convexities according to Down’s facial angle of

convexity (G’-Sn-Pog’ = 20°, Normative value = 12°, Standard Deviation = 2°) using the virtual

surgical prediction (VSP) function on Dolphin Imaging software. Since the only variable being

assessed was the influence of the C-T lengths on convex profiles, any adverse effects on the lips

that resulted from the class II manipulation was corrected, to isolate the testing of only the one

variable. Further, while the male subject had a pronounced throat point, to ensure consistency in

measurements, a more defined throat point was created on the female subject. These photos

were then considered the baseline patient photos from which chin-throat length manipulation was

completed for the study parameters. Adobe Photoshop Elements 2021 Photo Editor (San Jose,

CA) was used to ensure consistency in all images presented after all alterations made.

A total of 16 different color photographs were included in the survey. Each male and

female photo had the chin-throat length adjusted in 5 mm increments to generate a total of eight

altered photos ranging from 8mm – 43mm (Fig.1). To ensure the measured increments and

overall chin-throat lengths were consistent, the patients profile photos were superimposed on

their lateral cephalometric radiograph which contained a 100mm ruler (Fig. 2). Chin-throat

length adjustments were done in PowerPoint (Microsoft PowerPoint version 16.45, Redmond,

WA) using an overlay section of the neck containing throat point which was cut and pasted over

the calibrated profile photo and incrementally moved backwards to lengthen or forward to

shorten. Vertical gridlines were added to measure C-T lengths with the 100mm ruler used for
 7

conversion. This also adjusted for resizing and magnification errors. This process ensured that

digital measurements represented clinically applicable C-T lengths. The submental-cervical

angle was also measured to ensure it remained consistent across all images for the male and

female, respectively.

Survey Design

The composite of eight photos for each patient was displayed initially together and

survey participants were asked to choose the most attractive profile image out of the eight

presented (Fig.1). Supplementary questions then displayed one image at a time, with no labels,

in random order, and observers were asked to rate the profile on a 100mm visual analogue scale

(VAS). The following descriptive terms were used as anchor points for the ends and middle of

the sliding VAS, as follows: left, 0mm: ‘Less attractive’; middle, 50mm: ‘Normal/Average’; and

right, 100mm: ‘More attractive.’ An additional question was also asked with each image, if

participants would consider having corrective jaw-surgery to improve the facial appearance, if it

was their face (Fig.3).

Results:

The scores of 261 participants were evaluated using the SPSS package for statistical

analysis (version 24.0; IBM, Armonk, NY). Note that “orthodontist” or “orthodontic clinician”

respondents (n=98) evaluated in this study included participants under the following sub-

categories: Orthodontist (n=66), Orthodontic Resident (n=26), Oral Surgeon (n=4) and Oral

Surgery Resident (n=2). At the end of data collection, there were a total of n=300 respondents,

with 137 in the orthodontist group. However, all surveys completed by participants that

indicated they were either a general dentist or other dental specialist in a subsequent question

were omitted from evaluation. The investigators do not equate a lesser knowledge level of other
 8

dental colleagues to that of the average layperson, however, for purposes of this particular study,

the investigators identified the groups being surveyed specifically to evaluate if a heightened

awareness or advanced knowledge of facial esthetics would affect results. The various

demographics by group that were collected are reported in Table I.

Descriptive statistics including the mean and standard deviation were used to assess the

outcome measure, which was the facial attractiveness ratings of different chin-throat lengths for

the female and male photos. To test our first null hypothesis, a one-way repeated measures

analysis was completed and showed that there was a significant difference (p<0.001) for both the

female and male profile attractiveness ratings at different chin-throat lengths, therefore rejecting

the null hypothesis. However, for the female profile images presented, there was no significant

difference between C-T lengths 18mm and 23mm (F3 – F4), and for the longer C-T lengths,

there was no significant difference in the ratings of the 33mm – 43mm profiles (F6 – F8).

Likewise, for the male profile images rated, the longer C-T lengths 33mm – 43mm (M6 – M8),

had no significant difference in attractiveness ratings among them, but were rated significantly

different than the rest of the C-T length profiles presented.

A two-way ANOVA looking at chin-throat lengths and the different groups of raters was

performed to test our second null hypothesis and determined that for the female profiles

presented, there was a significant interaction (p<0.022) between chin-throat length and rater

group, making interpretation of the main effects impossible, in that there was no definitively

predictable pattern in how they differed. Tukey post-hoc analysis showed that the orthodontist

group was significantly different from the other two groups of raters for only specific chin-throat

lengths. Bonferoni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons, and therefore the

p-value for significance was reduced to p<0.006. A significant difference between the
 9

orthodontists’ attractiveness ratings compared to the layperson and patient groups for the female

profiles with 28mm and 33mm C-T lengths (p<0.001), thus rejecting the null hypothesis. When

evaluating the descriptive statistics (Fig. 5a & 5b), the layperson and orthodontic patient groups

were much more critical in their ratings of the female profiles (F3 – F7) with C-T lengths from

18mm-38mm and were nearly the same across all three groups for the longest (F8 = 43mm) and

shortest (F1 – F2) 8mm – 13mm C-T lengths. In regards to the male profiles presented,

statistically speaking, there was not a significant difference in the interaction term and the ratings

of the three groups followed a predictable pattern for the chin-throat lengths presented, failing to

reject the null hypothesis for male profiles. Clinically, however, this may be interpreted that all

groups comparably discerned how the C-T length influenced the perceived attractiveness, and

that advanced training in facial esthetics was inconsequential, perhaps because the changes in

chin-throat length had such an obvious impact on the male profile appearance (Figures 6a & 6b).

Chi-square tests were performed to assess the third null hypothesis that there was no

difference in the perceived need for surgical correction among the three groups of survey

participants when rating the various profiles. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences

in the responses among the groups surveyed for both female and male profiles at random C-T

lengths, thus rejecting the null hypothesis. However, of even more clinical significance, data

showed that for both the female and male profiles with the shortest C-T lengths ≤ 13mm, more

than 50% of survey participants in all groups responded that they would consider jaw surgery to

improve the profile, if it were theirs, with percentage of “Yes” responses ranging from 50.0 –

90.8% for male profiles F1 – F2, and 53.5% - 71.4% for female profiles F1 – F2.

In regards to the most attractive female and male profile, when participants were

presented a composite of the eight images for side-by-side comparison (Fig.1), the participants
 10

ranked the 38mm C-T length profiles (F7, M7) the highest, and the 43mm (F8, M8) profiles

second highest (Fig. 7)

Discussion:

The orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning of patients should always focus on a

comprehensive assessment of not only the dental and facial esthetics, but occlusal and TMJ

functions as well as potential sleep-related breathing disorders. Obstructive sleep apnea can have

severe co-morbidities and orthognathic surgery can potentially improve or adversely affect the

nasopharynx and hypopharynx airway spaces.17-19 Positional changes of the hyoid bone, tongue

and suprahyoid musculature that results with orthognathic surgery of the mandible not only

affects the airway, but the submental soft tissue components and will consequently impact

overall esthetics.18-20 The facial lower-third including the submental-cervical area, is a major

determinant of profile attractiveness, and thus a critical area of the orthodontic evaluation.15

According to Kiyak, the majority (41 – 89%) of Class II patients present with an aesthetic chief

complaint when seeking orthognathic surgery, making proper esthetic evaluation of primary

importance.21 However, many patients seek orthodontic treatment with solely dental-focused

chief complaints, and are often unaware of the correlation between their dental-skeletal

discrepancy to an unaesthetic profile and consequently may not include this in a chief complaint,

even when probed about esthetic concerns. Another subset of orthodontic patients, may be

completely unaware any profile imbalance exists. Including proper treatment recommendations

for profile augmentation may be more difficult for clinicians in these instances.

Countless studies on attractiveness have revealed the complexities that come with

defining beauty, and that what is considered attractive to patients and the average layperson may

not concur with what orthodontists and surgeons perceive as attractive based on their experience
 11

and advanced training.15,21 The purpose of this study, was to qualitatively evaluate if different

chin-throat lengths influenced the perception of facial attractiveness when assessing convex

profiles and to compare if these perceptions differed among orthodontic clinicians, orthodontic

patients and laypersons. Additionally, this study aimed to investigate the perceived need or

desire for corrective surgical procedures, among the groups surveyed, based on the profiles

presented.

The null hypotheses being investigated were that there was no difference in the

perception of facial attractiveness ratings with different chin-throat lengths at all, or among the

three observer groups. Secondarily, the authors assessed how all three observer groups compared

in their desire to elect surgical correction for each altered throat-length profile. With regard to

outcomes, the first null hypothesis was rejected. The changes in throat lengths had a direct

relationship with overall attractiveness ratings, in that, shorter C-T lengths garnered much lower

ratings, and as throat length increased, attractiveness ratings also increased. This was true among

all three groups of the targeted survey participants. In regards to how the ratings compared

across the groups, the layperson and orthodontic patient groups were more highly critical,

particularly of the female profiles presented as compared to the orthodontist group attractiveness

ratings. This observation may indicate the general public prefers a less convex profile (or more

chin prominence) on a female than has traditionally been thought. Indeed, a recent article in

Vogue magazine, titled “How the Defined Jaw Replaced High Cheekbones As Beauty’s Most-

Wanted,” references a 2017 study by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and

describes the rising trend in both men and women seeking aesthetic procedures to help improve

jawline definition and eliminate excess submental fat.22

 12

Whereas several studies have shown that the perception of facial attractiveness differs

between patients, peers, and dental professionals, one might expect this to be attributed to dental

professionals being more critical or able to more keenly detect smaller variances in facial

balance.23 However, in this study, the layperson and orthodontic patient groups were actually

found to be more critical than the orthodontic clinician, at least for the female profile ratings, and

all three groups ranked similarly for the different male profiles presented. Overall, most of the

groups had very similar rankings for the respective chin-throat lengths presented which may

suggest that this particular facial parameter had such a remarkable effect on the profile that its

evaluation is less influenced by the advanced training orthodontists receive compared to other

facial attributes.

In a study conducted by the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom, clinicians

rated patients as needing orthognathic treatment higher than the patients themselves, and

surgeons deemed even more so that surgical treatment was necessary.24 The results of this study

only found significant difference in the clinicians’ greater desire to elect surgery versus the

patient and layperson groups for the M1 – M3 profiles (C-T length 8mm – 18mm). For other

male and female profiles, it was generally a higher percentage of the patient and layperson

groups’ desire for surgical correction than the orthodontic clinicians group. Although it can be

expected that orthodontists and oral surgeons would be more sensitive in detecting facial or

profile disharmonies based on the nature of their training, patient groups can also demonstrate a

higher sensitivity than the norm due to either their own personal motivations for treatment, their

patient education from the providers treating them and their overall treatment experiences. All

of these factors appear to be consistent with the results of this study. A possible explanation for

instances in which the layperson groups were more critical in their attractiveness ratings or
 13

electing jaw surgery for profile improvement at a higher rate than the orthodontists, may be

explained by shifting views on esthetics and an increase in self-perception or decrease in self-

esteem, due to growing social media influence.25

The limitations of this study include sample size, evaluation of a non-traditional or not

routinely studied facial parameter, use of a 100mm VAS, and an innovative study design with

the use of color photographs as opposed to profile silhouette images. The literature search

provided no previous studies that have evaluated the chin-throat length and the impact changes in

length may have on an individual’s appearance. There is also limited data that can be found to

support if an established and generally accepted normative measurement for this facial parameter

already exists. In regards to the attractiveness rankings, the authors chose to use a 100mm VAS

as the rating mechanism in this study based on its simplicity and relative ease to submit quick

responses mostly to avoid survey fatigue. Based on the number of questions being asked, and the

lack of control in ensuring survey completion – since participation was anonymous and

voluntary – the investigators preferred the benefits of the VAS over a Likert scale, for instance,

to maximize the sample size. However, some disadvantages of using a VAS include the larger

variation and standard deviation in the responses, inability to know if observers interpreted the

anchor point descriptor words in the same manner, and the inability to discriminate how many

millimeters of difference in rankings is clinically relevant.21 Finally, most studies found in the

literature search, evaluated facial esthetic parameters by having participants rate computer-

generated silhouette images, that often fail to accurately represent an actual human face with the

harsh lines and sharp angles created. The use of real human faces allows the ability to smooth

lines and blend features even after manipulation for survey parameters to present a more realistic

image, and thus may be more accurate for facial attractiveness focused studies. There are of
 14

course benefits to silhouette images, in that they are able to remove extrinsic factors, such as

complexion, hair styles, facial hair and other variables that can undoubtedly influence perceived

attractiveness.21

Conclusions:

Orthognathic repositioning of the mandible will almost always serve to improve the

functional occlusion, but depending on the original dentofacial deformity, can influence the

airway space and esthetic submental soft tissues, either positively or negatively. Contrary to a

skeletal class III correction which may involve mandibular setback surgery and adversely create

a “double-chin” appearance, a class II skeletal profile may benefit from mandibular advancement

or genioplasty advancement procedures to increase the chin-throat length and stretch the

submental soft tissues more esthetically.20 As such, it is important to properly evaluate the

treatment goals of the lower third and all potential benefits that may come with either a surgical

or non-surgical treatment option. While the submental-cervical angle is often considered during

esthetic evaluation of the lower third, this study demonstrated that chin-throat length can

significantly impact the overall appearance of an individual as well. It should be noted that the

following conclusions and results of this study are based on the assumption that other key angles

and measurements of the throat form and lower third evaluation were acceptable as was

presented on the profiles of the study subjects. While it was necessary to isolate only one

variable for proper evaluation, it is more likely in a clinical setting that several areas of facial

imbalance will present together. Lower profile morphology is not only affected by dentofacial

deformity, but also skin tonicity and neck strap muscular changes that occur with normal aging,

or submental adiposity. The diagnosis and necessary treatment may also be multifactorial in
 15

nature and thus may require adjunctive esthetic procedures in conjunction with orthognathics for

optimal improvements.

 The results of this study demonstrate that longer chin-throat lengths (33 – 43mm)

rendered the skeletal class II retrognathic profiles as esthetically acceptable for both

female and male Caucasian subjects.

 When presented with a side-by-side comparison, overall study participants preferred the

38mm chin-throat length on both the female and male profile.

 For both males and females with overly convex profiles, chin-throat lengths  23mm

were in general rated as below average (Mean ranks 13.91 – 55.90mm on 100mm VAS)

by observers across all groups, and thus may represent a borderline esthetically

acceptable C-T length.

 In regards to threshold values for the desire to elect surgical intervention, along with

decreased attractiveness ratings, C-T lengths  13mm for both females and males suggest

a surgical treatment plan should be considered.

 When evaluating patients for a surgical vs. non-surgical correction of a skeletal class II

malocclusion, C-T length should be evaluated in addition to other routine facial angles

during assessment of the lower profile morphology.

 All orthognathic treatment plans should consider the chin-throat length and how

treatment may impact the esthetics of this area.

 16

Figure & Captions:

Figure 1. (a). All eight female images generated (A – Dd) ranging sequentially from the longest,
A = 43mm C-T length to the shortest, Dd = 8mm C-T length. While these images were
presented together initially, when participants were asked to select the most attractive of the
composite eight, subsequent questions presented only one male or female image in random
order. (b) All male images generated (E – Hh) ranging sequentially from the longest, E = 43mm
C-T length to the shortest, Hh = 8mm C-T length.

Figure 2. All images were calibrated using superimpositions of the patient’s original lateral
cephalometric radiographs with digital 100mm rulers and gridline measurements to adjust for
any resizing and magnification errors. This process ensured the digital measurements would
represent clinically applicable C-T lengths. Because the images had already had the facial
convexities altered, the original lateral cephalometric radiographs would not adapt fully in the
lower third.
 17

Figure 3. Example of subsequent survey questions that repeated for each male and female photo,
which were presented in random order.

Figure 4. Demographics: Survey participants by group (Total n=261)

Observer Number % % Age Range Mean Age Range % White/

Group (n) Female Male (yrs) Age (yrs) Distribution Caucasian

36% (25-34)
Orthodontic 38% (35-44)
98 47.96% 52.04% 25-65+ 39.3 81.63%
Clinician 20% (45-54)
6% (55+)

13% (18-24)
29% (25-34)
Orthodontic 38% (35-44)
77 70.13% 29.87% 18 - 65+ 37.6 57.14%
Patient 12% (45-54)
5% (55-64)
3% (65+)

2% (18-24)
22% (25-34)
42% (35-44)
Layperson 86 67.44% 32.56% 18 - 65+ 42.2 66.28%
16% (45-54)
15% (55-64)
2% (65+)
 18

Figure 5(a). Data Table: Female VAS Attractiveness Ratings & Surgical Desire by Group
Orthodontists Patients Layperson
(n=98) (n=77) (n=86)
Female Image Chin-Throat Mean Surgical Mean Surgical Mean Surgical
Profile Identifier Length Rank Desire Rank Desire Rank Desire
(mm) % Yes % Yes % Yes
F8 A 43 72.5 1.0% 71.0 1.3% 70.9 4.7%
F7 B 38 73.9 0.0% 68.6 2.6% 67.5 3.5%
F6 C 33 73.4 0.0% 63.6 3.9% 63.6 4.7%
F5 D 28 64.6 1.0% 55.4 7.8% 58.5 4.7%
F4 Aa 23 51.1 7.1% 45.7 26.0% 47.2 16.3%
F3 Bb 18 47.7 14.3% 41.3 23.4% 45.9 18.6%
F2 Cc 13 25.5 65.3% 24.3 67.5% 26.5 53.5%
F1 Dd 8 20.2 71.4% 21.9 68.8% 21.1 59.3%

Figure 5 (b). Bar Graph: Female VAS Attractiveness Ratings

Class II Female Profile: Mean Attractivness Ratings

Attractivness Rating (100mm VAS)

80
70 73 71 71 74 73
69 68
60 64 64 65
59
50 55
51
40 46 47 48 46
41
30
20 26 24 27
20 22 21
10
0
43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8
Chin-Throat Length (mm)

Orthodontist Patient Layperson

 19

Figure 6 (a). Data Table: Male VAS Attractiveness Ratings & Surgical Desire by Group
Orthodontists Patients Layperson
(n=98) (n=77) (n=86)
Male Image Chin-Throat Mean Surgical Mean Surgical Mean Surgical
Profile Identifier Length (mm) Rank Desire Rank Desire Rank Desire
%Yes %Yes % Yes
M8 E 43 67.9 1.0% 63.7 2.6% 65.5 1.2%
M7 F 38 70.6 1.0% 65.9 0.0% 66.4 2.3%
M6 G 33 67.0 2.0% 63.3 2.6% 63.7 4.7%
M5 H 28 59.9 2.0% 58.4 7.8% 58.2 1.2%
M4 Ee 23 55.9 8.2% 50.7 16.9% 49.8 9.3%
M3 Ff 18 39.5 40.8% 38.5 36.4% 41.4 20.9%
M2 Gg 13 22.6 75.5% 25.8 61.0% 24.5 50.0%
M1 Hh 8 14.2 90.8% 13.9 85.7% 16.7 73.3%

Figure 6 (b). Bar Graph: Male VAS Attractiveness Ratings

Class II Male Profile: Mean Attractivness Ratings
Attractivness Rating (100mm VAS)

80
70
71
68 66 66 67
60 64 66 63 64
60 58 58
50 56
51 50
40
40 39 41
30
20 23
26 25

10 14 14 17
0
43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8
Chin-Throat Length (mm)

Orthodontist Patient Layperson

 20

Figure 7. Bar Graph: Female and Male Profile Composite Rankings

Composite Ranking: Most Preferred Profile
140
121
120
100
79 82
80 70 73

60
40 31 31
16
20
1 2 5 4 5 2
0
13 18mm 23mm 28mm 33mm 38mm 43mm
F M
 21

References:

1. Little AC. Facial attractiveness. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2014;5:621-634.

2. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2011;366:1638-1659.

3. Chang CA, Fields HW, Jr., Beck FM, Springer NC, Firestone AR, Rosenstiel S et al.
Smile esthetics from patients' perspectives for faces of varying attractiveness. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e171-180.

4. Jacobson A, Jacobson, R.L. Radiographic Cephalometry: From Basics to 3-D Imaging.

New Malden, Surrey, UK: Quintessence Publishing Co. Limited; 2006.

5. Naini FB, Gill DS. Facial aesthetics: 1. Concepts and canons. Dent Update 2008;35:102-
104, 106-107.

6. Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG. Dental and facial asymmetries: a review. Angle
Orthod 1994;64:89-98.

7. Phillips C, Broder HL, Bennett ME: Dentofacial disharmony: motivations for seeking
treatment, Int J Adult Orthod Orthogn Surg 12:7-15, 1997.

8. Rivera SM et al: Patients’ own reasons and patient-perceived recommendations for

orthognathic surgery, Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 118:134-140, 2000.

9. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of lower
facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician,
and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:303-311.

10. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of chin
prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and
layperson. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(7):839-846.
doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.012

11. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Influence of chin height on
perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, layperson, and clinician. Angle
Orthod 2012;82:88-95.

12. Modarai F, Donaldson JC, Naini FB. The influence of lower lip position on the perceived
attractiveness of chin prominence. Angle Orthod 2013;83:795-800.

13. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. How does variation in lower
anterior face height influence perceived attractiveness? A quantitative investigation. J
Orthod 2013;40:206-217.
 22

14. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Nasofacial angle and
nasal prominence: A quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. J
Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:446-452.

15. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Submental-Cervical Angle:

Perceived Attractiveness and Threshold Values of Desire for Surgery. J Maxillofac Oral
Surg 2016; 15:469-477.

16. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Mentolabial angle and
aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Maxillofac
Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39:4.

17. Behrents RG, Shelgikar AV, Conley RS, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and orthodontics:
An American Association of Orthodontists White Paper. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2019;156(1):13-28.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.04.009

18. Irani SK, Oliver DR, Movahed R, Kim YI, Thiesen G, Kim KB. Pharyngeal airway
evaluation after isolated mandibular setback surgery using cone-beam computed
tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(1):46-53.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.031

19. Santagata M, Tozzi U, Lamart E, Tartaro G. Effect of Orthognathic Surgery on the

Posterior Airway Space in Patients Affected by Skeletal Class III Malocclusion. J
Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015;14(3):682-686. doi:10.1007/s12663-014-0687-8

20. Ghassemi M, Hilgers RD, Jamilian A, et al. Consideration of effect of the amount of
mandibular setback on the submental region in the planning of orthodontic-orthognathic
treatment. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52(4):334-339.
doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.01.009

21. Ng D, De Silva RK, Smit R, De Silva H, Farella M. Facial attractiveness of skeletal Class
II patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery as perceived by people with
different backgrounds. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:515-520.

22. Coates, Hannah. "How The Defined Jaw Replaced High Cheekbones As Beauty’s Most
Wanted." British Vogue. 14 Jan. 2020. Web. 08 Mar. 2021.

23. Dunlevy H A, White R P Jr, Turvey T A 1987 Professional and lay judgment of facial
esthetic changes following orthognathic surgery. International Journal of Adult
Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 2: 151–158

24. Juggins KJ, Nixon F, Cunningham SJ. Patient- and clinician-perceived need for
orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:697-702.

25. Hannes-Vincent Krause, Katharina Baum, Annika Baumann & Hanna

Krasnova (2021) Unifying the detrimental and beneficial effects of social network site
use on self-esteem: a systematic literature review, Media Psychology, 24:1, 10-
47, DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2019.1656646