Health science reports · 2026
Attractive Levels of Dental Midline Shift, Midline Cant, Mouth Corner Asymmetry, Nose Deviation, and Chin Asymmetry According to Dental Specialists, Dentists, and Laypeople, Plus Their Asymmetry Perception Thresholds Under Sequential Viewing: A Diagnostic Psychometric Study.
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.
Samie Soroor, Niknam Ozra, Ale Taha Fatemeh Sadat, Feiz Arman, Rakhshan Vahid
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to examine, for the first time, two sets of goals: (1) simultaneous effects of five sets of asymmetries in five facial features (midline shift, midline cant, mouth corner, nose deviation, chin deviation) plus judges' expertise level and demographics on facial beauty, and (2) thresholds of different expertise levels for detecting asymmetries in these 5 features.
METHODS: In the first part of this diagnostic psychometric research, 23 perceptometric pictures of a girl were randomized. Images had asymmetries in five dentofacial features: midline shift (0-1-2-3-4 mm), midline cant (0-2-3.5-5-6.5°), mouth corner elevation (0-1-2-3-4 mm), nose deviation (0-1-2-3-4 mm), and chin deviation (0-2-4-6-8 mm). Their esthetics were rated (6 Likert scales [0-5]) by 181 judges in three groups: specialists (Orthodontist/Surgeon/Prosthodontist/Restorative/esthetic dentistry specialist), general dentists, and laypeople. Simultaneous impacts of anatomical asymmetries and referees' expertise/sex/age on beauty were evaluated using mixed-effects linear regression/Bonferroni. In the second part, the same judges were shown a series of increasing asymmetries of each feature and were asked to select the smallest extent of noticeable asymmetry under sequential viewing. Their detection thresholds were compared (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Specialists tended to give lower esthetic scores than both dentists and laypeople (who did not differ from each other significantly). All 5 anatomical features had significant esthetic roles (p < 0.05). The most appealing facial features were midlines without any shift, midlines with 0-3.5° cant, mouth corners without change or with 0-2 mm asymmetry, no nose deviation, and no chin deviation (Bonferroni, p < 0.05). For each facial feature, detection threshold was lower for specialists compared to general dentists, who themselves had lower thresholds than laypeople (Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn-Bonferroni, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetries in all dentofacial features and sex affected beauty perception. The most appealing forms were symmetrical. Asymmetrical detection thresholds were the lowest in specialists, followed by dentists.
METHODS: In the first part of this diagnostic psychometric research, 23 perceptometric pictures of a girl were randomized. Images had asymmetries in five dentofacial features: midline shift (0-1-2-3-4 mm), midline cant (0-2-3.5-5-6.5°), mouth corner elevation (0-1-2-3-4 mm), nose deviation (0-1-2-3-4 mm), and chin deviation (0-2-4-6-8 mm). Their esthetics were rated (6 Likert scales [0-5]) by 181 judges in three groups: specialists (Orthodontist/Surgeon/Prosthodontist/Restorative/esthetic dentistry specialist), general dentists, and laypeople. Simultaneous impacts of anatomical asymmetries and referees' expertise/sex/age on beauty were evaluated using mixed-effects linear regression/Bonferroni. In the second part, the same judges were shown a series of increasing asymmetries of each feature and were asked to select the smallest extent of noticeable asymmetry under sequential viewing. Their detection thresholds were compared (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Specialists tended to give lower esthetic scores than both dentists and laypeople (who did not differ from each other significantly). All 5 anatomical features had significant esthetic roles (p < 0.05). The most appealing facial features were midlines without any shift, midlines with 0-3.5° cant, mouth corners without change or with 0-2 mm asymmetry, no nose deviation, and no chin deviation (Bonferroni, p < 0.05). For each facial feature, detection threshold was lower for specialists compared to general dentists, who themselves had lower thresholds than laypeople (Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn-Bonferroni, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetries in all dentofacial features and sex affected beauty perception. The most appealing forms were symmetrical. Asymmetrical detection thresholds were the lowest in specialists, followed by dentists.