SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Dental Research / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

Preference for different lip positions in a Turkish population

Sabahattin BOR
Fatih KAZANCI
Artemisa ADIGÜZEL
Pages
123–130
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therewere significant differences among the groups when assessing maleprofiles ‘a’, ‘c’ (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: This study evaluated the preferences for different lip positionsamong dental students, dentists, laypersons, and patients.Methodology: Average female and male silhouette profiles wereconstructed from published soft tissue data for the Turkish population.The lips in each average profile were protruded or retruded in 2 mmincrements with respect to Ricketts’ E-line.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Then, 54 dentalstudents, 55 dentists, 46 laypersons, and 60 orthodontic patients wereasked to rate each silhouette profile from 1 (least attractive) to 10(most attractive).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therewere significant differences among the groups when assessing maleprofiles ‘a’, ‘c’ (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluated the preferences for different lip positionsamong dental students, dentists, laypersons, and patients.Methodology: Average female and male silhouette profiles wereconstructed from published soft tissue data for the Turkish population.The lips in each average profile were protruded or retruded in 2 mmincrements with respect to Ricketts’ E-line. Five images were createdfrom the average profile and arranged randomly. Then, 54 dentalstudents, 55 dentists, 46 laypersons, and 60 orthodontic patients wereasked to rate each silhouette profile from 1 (least attractive) to 10(most attractive). The independent t-test was used to analyze theeffect of gender on preference and one-way analysis of variance wasused to determine whether there were differences among the groups.Results: The dentists favored profile ‘a’ (+2 mm protruded), whilethe other groups favored profile ‘e’ (average profile) in both sexes.Profile ‘d’ was the least favored profile, except in the dentists group.For the dental students, profile ‘d’ was the least favored of the maleprofiles and ‘c’ was the least favored of the female profiles. Therewere significant differences among the groups when assessing maleprofiles ‘a’, ‘c’ (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BOR, S., KAZANCI, F., ADIGÜZEL, A. (2022). Preference for different lip positions in a Turkish population. International Dental Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 123–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/539546

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Chitra P, Aravind APSPNKS, Mathur A. Assessment of different facial profiles by groups children, adolescents, dental students, artists & orthodontists. J Res Adv Dent 2015;4:1s-110-15
  2. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967;53(4):262–84. (Crossref
  3. Joshi M, Wu LP, Maharjan S, et al. Sagittal lip positions in different skeletal malocclusions: a cephalometric analysis. Prog Orthod 2015; 16:8. doi: 10.1186/s40510-015-0077-x. (Crossref
  4. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:220–30. (Crossref
  5. Collins M. The eye of beholder: face recognition and perception. Seminars in Orthodontics 2012;18(3):229–34. (Crossref
  6. Hwang HS, Kim WS and McNamara JA. Ethnic Differences in the Soft Tissue Profile of Korean and European-American Adults with Normal Occlusions and Well-Balanced Faces. Angle Orthodontist. 2002;72(1):72–80
  7. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40(4):283–318
  8. Martin JC. Racial ethnocentrism and judgment of beauty. J Soc Psychol 1964;63:59–63. (Crossref
  9. De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft-tissue profile preference, Am J Orthod 1984;1:67–73. (Crossref
  10. Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng’ang’a PM, Rugh JD, et al. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135(4 Suppl):S87–95. (Crossref
  11. Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod 1961;31(3):141–56
  12. Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, and Braitman LE. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141:161-8. (Crossref
  13. Farkas LG. in Anthropometry of the Head and Face. 1994; Raven Press: New York
  14. Gündüz Arslan S, Genç C, Odabaş B ve Devecioğlu Kama J. Comparison of facial proportions and anthropometric norms among Turkish young adults with different face types. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2008;32(2):234–42. (Crossref
  15. Denize ES, McDonald F, Sherriff M, Naini FB. Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: A novel approach. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2014;44(4):184– 94. (Crossref
  16. Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans -an esthetic evaluation