A photogrammetric and cephalometric evaluation of facial symmetry and smile in relation to attractiveness.
Abstract
Introduction: Human find symmetrical face more attractive than are asymmetrical faces. The smile is one of the most important facial expressions and is essential in expressing friendliness, agreement, and appreciation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between smile and symmetry in attributing to attractiveness.
Materials & Method: The study was conducted in the Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, on 150 samples. 150 good quality radiographs and photographs of the patients were obtained. The subjects were divided into three groups: Group I – Horizontal growth pattern Group II – Average growth pattern Group III – Vertical growth pattern. The frontal facial photograph and PA cephalometric radiograph were used to assess the facial symmetry. Posed smile photograph and Lateral cephalometric radiograph were used to assess the smile. Digimizer Image Analyzer (bvba software) were used for the analysis. The ratings were given by the expert panellist based on attractiveness
Results: In the present study, Left facial symmetry parameters is marginally higher than right side in cephalometric analysis and converse for photographic analysis, right facial symmetry parameters is marginally higher than left side but this is not statistically significant. There are no statistically significant difference among the groups for smile -photographic parameters and lateral cephalometric smile parameters. There is statistically significant difference among the groups for Visual Analog Scale readings for attractiveness given by orthodontist, general dentist and layperson for frontal profile for the subjects of three study groups.
Conclusion: The study revealed that in cephalometric analysis, left hemiface is wider than right hemiface while in photographic analysis, right hemiface is wider than left hemiface. Vertical grower shows maximum upper incisor exposure and upper and lower vermilion lip thickness. On the contrary full smile length was minimum in vertical grower. The most favored profile by VAS was horizontal growth pattern.
References
2. Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and human behavior 1999;20:295-307.
3. Krishnan V, Daniel ST, Lazar D, Asok A. characterization of posed smile by using visual analog scale, smile arc, buccal corridor measures, and modified smile index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:515-23.
4. Grummons DC. A frontal asymmetry analysis. JCO 1987;21:448-465.
5. Rai D, Janardhanam P, Rai A. Esthetic factors of smile in vertical dimensions: A comparative evaluation. J Indian Orthod Society 2015;49:25-31.
6. Cheong YW, Lo LJ. Facial Asymmetry: Etiology, Evaluation, and Management. Chang Gung Med J 2011;34:341-51.
7. Chetan P, Tandon P, Singh GK, Nagar A, Prasad V, Chugh VK. Dynamics of a smile in different age groups. Angle Orthod.2013;83:90–96.
8. Tamir, Abraham MD. Quantitative Analysis of Face Symmetry. J Craniofacial Surgery 2015;26:1268-1269.
9. Haraguchi S, Iguchi Y, Takada K. Asymmetry of the Face in Orthodontic Patients. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 421-426.
10. Vig PS, Hewitt AB. Asymmetry of the human facial skeleton. Angle Orthod. 1975;45:125–129.
11. Chebib FS, Chamma AM. Indices of craniofacial asymmetry.Angle Orthod. 1981;51:214–226.
12. Farkas LG, Cheung G. Facial asymmetry in healthy North American caucasians. Angle Orthod. 1981; 61:70–77.
13. McNamara L, McNamara Jr JA, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard- and softtissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133:491–9.
14. Grover N, Kapoor DN, Verma S, Bharadwaj P. Smile analysis in different facial patterns and its correlation with underlying hard tissues. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:28.
15. Rigsbee OH, Sperry TP, BeGole EA. The influence of facial animation on smile characteristics. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1988;3:233–9.
16. Lundstrom A, Woodside DG, Popovich F. panel assessment of facial profile related to mandibular growth direction. Eur J Orthod 1987; 9:271-278.
