PeerJ · 2025
Role of initial facial attractiveness in the perceived aesthetic outcome of convex profile treatment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Psomiadis Simos, Iatrou Ioannis, Sifakakis Iosif, Gkantidis Nikolaos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Facial attractiveness significantly influences various life outcomes, motivating individuals to seek interventions for improvement. However, the actual benefits of such interventions and patient satisfaction largely depend on the perceived changes in facial appearance. This perception may be influenced by certain mediating factors. This study aimed to investigate how pre-treatment facial attractiveness affects the perceived facial appearance changes in convex profile patients undergoing orthodontic-surgical vs. orthodontic-only treatments.
METHODS: The sample comprised 36 non-growing Class II Division 1 patients, divided evenly between treatments, with similar demographics, overjet, and treatment durations. The treatments had distinct effects on the facial contour angle (orthodontics-only: -1.2 ± 2.1°, combined orthodontics/surgery: -6.2 ± 3.9°; p < 0.001). Pre-treatment attractiveness and perceived facial changes were evaluated using frontal and profile photographs, assessed on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Each photographic set was rated by 10 surgeons, 10 orthodontists, 10 patients, and 20 laypeople, resulting in 3,600 completed questionnaires for perceived treatment effects and an additional 3,600 for attractiveness ratings.
RESULTS: The overall facial attractiveness was lower than average (mean: 36.1), with orthodontics-only patients being significantly more attractive than patients that received surgery (mean difference: 8.2%, p < 0.001) and no significant influence of patient sex or rater type. For every 1% increase in overall facial attractiveness, there was a 0.3% decrease in the perceived facial change (p = 0.002). After accounting for pre-treatment facial attractiveness, the combined orthodontic/surgical treatment led to a substantial improvement (16%) of facial appearance, as compared to the orthodontics-only group.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the critical role of facial attractiveness in shaping perceived treatment outcomes. Pre-treatment facial and profile attractiveness were inversely associated with perceived changes, suggesting that patients with initially lower attractiveness experienced more noticeable improvements. After accounting for facial attractiveness, combined orthodontic and surgical treatment was perceived significantly more favorably than orthodontic treatment alone in patients with convex facial profiles. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating facial attractiveness considerations into patient counseling and treatment planning.
METHODS: The sample comprised 36 non-growing Class II Division 1 patients, divided evenly between treatments, with similar demographics, overjet, and treatment durations. The treatments had distinct effects on the facial contour angle (orthodontics-only: -1.2 ± 2.1°, combined orthodontics/surgery: -6.2 ± 3.9°; p < 0.001). Pre-treatment attractiveness and perceived facial changes were evaluated using frontal and profile photographs, assessed on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Each photographic set was rated by 10 surgeons, 10 orthodontists, 10 patients, and 20 laypeople, resulting in 3,600 completed questionnaires for perceived treatment effects and an additional 3,600 for attractiveness ratings.
RESULTS: The overall facial attractiveness was lower than average (mean: 36.1), with orthodontics-only patients being significantly more attractive than patients that received surgery (mean difference: 8.2%, p < 0.001) and no significant influence of patient sex or rater type. For every 1% increase in overall facial attractiveness, there was a 0.3% decrease in the perceived facial change (p = 0.002). After accounting for pre-treatment facial attractiveness, the combined orthodontic/surgical treatment led to a substantial improvement (16%) of facial appearance, as compared to the orthodontics-only group.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the critical role of facial attractiveness in shaping perceived treatment outcomes. Pre-treatment facial and profile attractiveness were inversely associated with perceived changes, suggesting that patients with initially lower attractiveness experienced more noticeable improvements. After accounting for facial attractiveness, combined orthodontic and surgical treatment was perceived significantly more favorably than orthodontic treatment alone in patients with convex facial profiles. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating facial attractiveness considerations into patient counseling and treatment planning.