The influence of sagittal position of the mandible in facial attractiveness and social perception

This study aims at comparing the perception of orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, visual artists and laypersons when evaluating the influence of sagittal position of the mandible - in lateral view - in facial attractiveness; at a job hiring; and in the perception of socioeconomic profile.

METHODS:

A black male, a white male, a black female and a white female with harmonic faces served as models to obtain a facial profile photograph. Each photograph was digitally manipulated to obtain seven facial profiles: an ideal, three simulating mandibular advancement and three simulating mandibular retrusion, producing 28 photographs. These photographs were evaluated through a questionnaire by orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, visual artists and laypersons.

RESULTS:

The anteroposterior positioning of the mandible exerted strong influence on the level of facial attractiveness, but few significant differences between the different groups of evaluators were observed (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

The profiles pointed as the most attractive were also pointed as more favorable to be hired to a job position and pointed also as having the best socioeconomic condition.

Keywords:
Mandible; Social values; Esthetics.

Authorship

Lorena Marques Ferreira de Sena

Post-graduation program, Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, BrazilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteBrazilNatal, RN, BrazilPost-graduation program, Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil

Lislley Anne Lacerda Damasceno e Araújo

Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Department of Dentistry, Natal, RN, BrazilFederal University of Rio Grande do NorteBrazilNatal, RN, BrazilFederal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Department of Dentistry, Natal, RN, Brazil

Arthur Costa Rodrigues Farias

Hallissa Simplício Gomes Pereira

Adjunct professor in Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, BrazilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteBrazilNatal, RN, BrazilAdjunct professor in Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil

Contact address: Lorena Marques Ferreira de Sena Av. Senador Salgado Filho, nº 1787. Natal/RN - Brazil - CEP: 59.056-000 E-mail: lorena.mf@hotmail.com.

" The authors report no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (7)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Facial profiles of the white male, as they were presented to evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of the level of attractiveness that the different facial profiles exerted on the evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Mean and standard deviation of the level of facial attractiveness of the black male, according to each group of evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Mean and standard deviation of the level of facial attractiveness of the white male, according to each group of evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Mean and standard deviation of the level of face attractiveness of the black female, according to each group of evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Mean and standard deviation of the level of face attractiveness of the white female, according to each group of evaluators.

Thumbnail

Table 6
Percentage of evaluators per group that chose each facial profile as the most trustworthy to hire for a job position.

Thumbnail

Table 7
Percentage of evaluators that chose each profile as the one presenting better social-economic condition.

Figure 1 Facial profiles of the white male, as they were presented to evaluators.

Table 1 Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of the level of attractiveness that the different facial profiles exerted on the evaluators.

Facial convexity angle	Black male	White male	Black female	White woman
	M/SD	M/SD	M/SD	M/SD
0o	1.07/0.86	1.80/1.53	0.84/0.66	0.86/0.86
4o	3.55/2.27	6.24/2.41	2.36/1.49	2.31/1.5
8o	8.21/2.34	9.36/2.17	6.33/2.62	6.34/2.19
12o	9.41/2.16	8.43/2.65	9.01/2.11	9.25/1.91
16o	5.66/2.18	4.99/2.06	6.64/2.39	7.03/2.12
20o	2.32/1.72	2.11/1.64	3.56/2.20	4.87/2.08
24o	1.12/1.07	1.07/1.24	1.57/1.22	2.07/2.09

Confidence interval = 95%.

Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of the level of facial attractiveness of the black male, according to each group of evaluators.

Facial convexity angle	Orthodontists			Surgeons		Visual artists		Laypersons
Facial convexity angle	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
0°	0.74*	0.60	0.75**	0.57	1.30	0.94	1.50 , *	1.01
4°	3.85	2.17	3.73	2.08	3.29	2.42	3.33	2.51
8°	7.77*	2.45	8.37	1.89	9.68 , *	1.46	7.04 **	2.66
12°	10.83*	0.80	10.60**	0.95	8.93 , , **	1.86	7.30 , , **	2.42
16°	6.24	2.06	5.87	1.46	5.78	2.39	4.76	2.52
20°	2.31	1.95	2.30	1.85	2.36	1.61	2.33	1.59
24°	0.77*	0.91	0.68**	0.52	1.27	0.77	1.78 , *	1.51

*, **, *** Statistically significant difference among the groups of evaluators (p < 0,05).

Table 3 Mean and standard deviation of the level of facial attractiveness of the white male, according to each group of evaluators.

Facial convexity angle	Orthodontists			Surgeons		Visual artists		Laypersons
Facial convexity angle	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
0°	1.69	1.79	1.54	0.93	2.41	1.66	2.37	1.49
4°	6.75	1.76	6.74	2.12	6.17	2.79	6.11	2.91
8°	11.30*	0.58	10.91**	0.74	8.21 , *	2.04	7.83 , *	2.10
12°	10.23*	1.74	10.38**	1.37	7.18 , *	2.27	6.75 , *	2.69
16°	5.05	1.79	5.44	1.85	4.73	2.30	5.56	2.29
20°	1.71*	1.21	1.54**	0.99	3.09 , *	1.95	2.89	1.71
24°	0.62*	0.36	1.20	1.73	1.73*	1.27	1.54	0.97

*, ** Statistically significant difference among the groups of evaluators (p < 0,05).

Table 4 Mean and standard deviation of the level of face attractiveness of the black female, according to each group of evaluators.

Facial convexity angle	Orthodontists			Surgeons		Visual artists		Laypersons
Facial convexity angle	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
0°	0.57*	0.46	0.57**	0.43	1.10 , *	0.77	1.12 , *	0.71
4°	2.59	1.80	2.60	1.59	2.15	1.27	2.10	1.26
8°	6.47	2.59	6.26	2.49	6.32	2.76	6.28	2.82
12°	10.98*	0.70	10.68**	1.02	7.47 , *	1.30	6.92 , *	1.06
16°	7.69*	2.34	8.07**	2.15	5.44 , *	1.88	5.38 , *	1.89
20°	3.93	2.39	3.70	2.05	3.01	2.14	3.60	2.29
24°	1.14	1.19	1.20	0.98	1.93	1.19	2.01	1.29

*, **, *** Statistically significant difference among the groups of evaluators (p < 0,05).

Table 5 Mean and standard deviation of the level of face attractiveness of the white female, according to each group of evaluators.

Facial convexity angle	Orthodontists			Surgeons		Visual artists		Laypersons
Facial convexity angle	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
0°	0.37 *	0.25	0.37 **	0.35	1.38 , *	0.88	1.34 , *	1.03
4°	1.84	0.95	2.20	1.39	2.65	1.75	2.57	1.74
8°	6.25	2.11	6.41	2.09	6.39	2.40	6.34	2.29
12°	10.75 *	1.16	10.65 **	0.98	7.96 , *	1.45	7.66 , *	1.37
16°	6.81	1.82	7.02	1.77	7.15	2.53	7.17	2.38
20°	4.84	1.50	4.93	1.42	4.91	2.66	4.80	2.57
24°	1.07 , *	1.09	1.04	0.83	3.09 , *	2.48	3.08 , *	2.42

*, ** Statistically significant difference among the groups of evaluators (p < 0,05).

Table 6 Percentage of evaluators per group that chose each facial profile as the most trustworthy to hire for a job position.

	0°	4°	8°	12°	16°	20°	24°
Black male					16°	20°	24°
Orthodontists	0%	0%	10%	90%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	25%	50%	25%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	0%	20%	60%	15%	0%	5%
White male					15%	0%	5%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	60%	40%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	50%	50%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	35%	50%	15%	0%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	14%	54%	14%	14%	0%	4%
Black female					14%	0%	4%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	10%	90%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	10%	90%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	10%	75%	15%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	0%	9%	73%	14%	0%	4%
White female					14%	0%	4%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	0%	80%	20%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	0%	70%	30%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	0%	50%	50%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	4%	10%	41%	37%	4%	4%

Table 7 Percentage of evaluators that chose each profile as the one presenting better social-economic condition.

	0°	4°	8°	12°	16°	20°	24°
Black male					16°	20°	24°
Orthodontists	0%	0%	10%	90%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	30%	70%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	45%	55%	0%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	0%	50%	41%	9%	0%	0%
White male					9%	0%	0%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	50%	50%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	40%	60%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	30%	45%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	14%	59%	23%	4%	0%	0%
Black female					4%	0%	0%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	20%	70%	10%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	0%	18%	64%	18%	0%	0%
White female					18%	0%	0%
Orthodontists	0%	0%	0%	90%	10%	0%	0%
Surgeons	0%	0%	0%	80%	20%	0%	0%
Visual artists	0%	0%	0%	55%	45%	0%	0%
Laypersons	0%	4%	14%	50%	28%	4%	0%

How to cite

copy

Dental Press International Av. Luís Teixeira Mendes, 2712 , 87015-001 - Maringá - PR, Tel: (55 44) 3033-9818 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: artigos@dentalpress.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

The influence of sagittal position of the mandible in facial attractiveness and social perception

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] Contact address: Lorena Marques Ferreira de Sena Av. Senador Salgado Filho, nº 1787. Natal/RN - Brazil - CEP: 59.056-000 E-mail: lorena.mf@hotmail.com.