DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values

  • Naini, Farhad B. (Kingston and St George's Hospitals and St George's Medical School) ;
  • Cobourne, Martyn T. (King's College London Dental Institute) ;
  • Garagiola, Umberto (Department of Reconstructive and Diagnostic Surgical Sciences, University of Milan) ;
  • McDonald, Fraser (King's College London Dental Institute) ;
  • Wertheim, David (Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University)
  • Received : 2017.01.16
  • Accepted : 2017.01.23
  • Published : 2017.12.31

Abstract

Background: This study is a quantitative evaluation of the influence of the mentolabial angle on perceived attractiveness and threshold values of desire for surgery. Methods: The mentolabial angle of an idealized silhouette male Caucasian profile image was altered incrementally between $84^{\circ}$ and $162^{\circ}$. Images were rated on a Likert scale by pretreatment orthognathic patients (n = 75), lay people (n = 75) and clinicians (n = 35). Results: A mentolabial angle of approximately $107^{\circ}$ to $118^{\circ}$ was deemed the most attractive, with a range of up to $140^{\circ}$ deemed acceptable. Angles above or below this range were perceived as unattractive, and anything outside the range of below $98^{\circ}$ or above $162^{\circ}$ was deemed very unattractive. A deep mentolabial angle ($84^{\circ}$) or an almost flat angle ($162^{\circ}$) was deemed the least attractive. In terms of threshold values of desire for surgery, for all groups, a threshold value of ${\geq}162^{\circ}$ and ${\leq}84^{\circ}$ indicated a preference for surgery, although clinicians were least likely to suggest surgery. The clinician group was the most consistent, and for many of the images, there was some variation in agreement between clinicians and lay people as to whether surgery is required. There was even more variability in the assessments for the patient group. Conclusions: It is recommended that in orthognathic and genioplasty planning, the range of normal variability of the mentolabial angle, in terms of observer acceptance, is taken into account as well as threshold values of desire for surgery. The importance of using patients as observers in attractiveness research is stressed.

Keywords

References

  1. Rosen H (1991) Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:760-767 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199111000-00002
  2. Naini FB (2011) Regional aesthetic analysis: mentolabial (labiomental) fold. In: Naini FB (ed) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
  3. Naini FB, Gill DS (2017) Principles of orthognathic treatment planning. In: Naini FB, Gill DS (eds) Orthognathic surgery: principles, planning and practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
  4. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts A (2005) Effect of facial convexity on antero-posterior lip positions of the most favored Japanese facial profiles. Angle Orthod 75:326-332
  5. Naini FB, Donaldson ANA, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, layperson and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:839-846 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.012
  6. Farkas LG, Kolar JC (1987) Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women's faces. Clin Plast Surg 14:599-616
  7. Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face. In: Farkas LG (ed) Anthropometry of the head and face, 2nd edn. Raven, New York
  8. Naini FB (2011) Facial aesthetics: concepts and clinical diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
  9. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126:390-423 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
  10. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, McDonald F, Donaldson AN (2008) The influence of craniofacial to standing height proportion on perceived attractiveness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:877-885 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.07.022
  11. Powell N, Humphreys B (1984) Proportions of the aesthetic face. Thieme, New York
  12. Papel ID (2004) Computer imaging for facial plastic surgery. In: Papel ID (ed) Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart
  13. Lehocky BE (2006) Anthropometry and cephalometric facial analysis. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery, vol II, 2nd edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia
  14. Legan H, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744-751
  15. Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J (1990) Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 60:177-190
  16. Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, Yin G, McGrath C (2015) Inter-ethnic/racial facial variations: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of photogrammetric studies. Plos One 10(8):e0134525 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134525
  17. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, Bagic I, Baltadjiev G et al (2005) International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 16:615-646 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.scs.0000171847.58031.9e

Cited by

  1. Book review for "Orthognathic Surgery: Principles, Planning and Practice" vol.39, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0119-z
  2. Social Perception of the Nasal Dorsal Contour in Male Rhinoplasty vol.21, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0321
  3. Mentolabial sulcus and malocclusion: Facial esthetics in ethnic Tamil population vol.10, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4103/srmjrds.srmjrds_64_19
  4. Chin Profile Changes in Skeletal Class III Following Bimaxillary Surgery with or without Advancement Genioplasty vol.13, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5856/jkds.2020.13.1.11
  5. The Ideal Lips: Lessons Learnt from the Literature vol.45, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02190-x