Orthodontists’ and laypersons’ aesthetic assessment of Class III subjects referred for orthognathic surgery.
Abstract
This study was undertaken to compare laypersons' and professionals' perception of soft tissue profiles of Class III adults, and to evaluate which cephalometric variables are likely to influence the profile assessment score (PAS). Lateral headfilms and coloured profile photographs of 18 skeletal Class III Caucasian adult patients (10 males, 8 females with a mean age of 24.5 years) prior to surgery, and nine adult Caucasian patients (four males, five females with a mean age of 27.4 years) with a dental Class I occlusion and no major skeletal discrepancy were included in the study. The headfilms were hand traced and digitized. Various cephalometric variables were calculated by computer software. Each printed profile photograph was evaluated aesthetically by 18 laypersons and 18 orthodontists using a 10-graded visual analogue scale (VAS) and a standard profile for calibration. Intra-observer reliability was tested and no significant error was found. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to compare the scores. The association between various cephalometric variables and the PAS was tested. In general, compared with orthodontists, laypersons were less critical in their evaluation of the Class III profiles (+0.3 grade on the VAS) as well as the reference profiles (+0.7). The reference profiles were found to be more attractive than the Class III profiles by both laypersons and orthodontists (+2.3 grades). The degree of facial concavity had a negatively predictive value for the orthodontists' and laypersons' evaluations. The degree of facial concavity together with the steepness of the mandibular plane were negatively predictive factors for the PAS given by the orthodontists.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clinicians are often more critical of craniofacial anomalies compared with the public.
“The usefulness of this perspective is underscored by studies showing that clinicians are often more critical of craniofacial anomalies compared with the public.23–25”
From Long-term Outcomes of Infant Ear Molding: A 10-year Single-Surgeon Experience (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
David, F. N., & Tukey, J. W. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529486 · Cited by 12,707 · see citing works
The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements
Houston, W. J. B. (1983) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6 · Cited by 1,823 · see citing works
Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I
Arnett, G. W., & Bergman, R. T. (1993) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-l · Cited by 824 · see citing works
Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning—part II
Arnett, G. W., & Bergman, R. T. (1993) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(05)81791-3 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
A foundation for cephalometric communication
Ricketts, R. (1960) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(60)90047-6 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Proportions of the Aesthetic Face
Powell, N. B., & Humphreys, B. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Growth of the nasopharynx and adenoid development from one to eighteeen years.
Handelman, C. S., & Osborne, G. E. (1976) · PubMed · doi:10.1043/0003-3219(1976)046 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Panel Perception of Facial Attractiveness
Kerr, W. J. S., & O'Donnell, J. M. (1990) · British Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1179/bjo.17.4.299 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Soft-tissue profile preference
Smit, A. D., & Dermaut, L. R. (1984) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90278-1 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Profilemetrics and facial esthetics
Lines, P. A., Lines, R. R., & Lines, C. A. (1978) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
A comparison of providers’ and consumers’ perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness
Maple, J. R., Vig, K. W. L., Beck, F. M., et al. (2005) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.030 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists
Prahl‐Andersen, B., Boersma, H., der Linden, F. P. G. M. V., & Moore, A. W. (1979) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0456 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians.
Cochrane, S. M., Cunningham, S. J., & Hunt, N. P. (1999) · PubMed · Cited by 117 · see citing works
The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness
Johnston, D. J., Hunt, O. T., Johnston, C., et al. (2005) · European Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1093/ejo/cji023 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women.
Michiels, G., & Sather, A. H. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery
Shelly, A. D., Southard, T. E., Southard, K. A., et al. (2000) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70171-5 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery
Burcal, R. G., Laskin, D. M., & Sperry, T. P. (1987) · Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/0278-2391(87)90304-1 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
The influence of mandibular prominence on facial attractiveness
Johnston, C., Hunt, O. T., Burden, D. J., et al. (2005) · European Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjh093 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: Assessments by lay people
Bishara, S. E., & Jakobsen, J. R. (1997) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70229-4 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals.
Phillips, C. L., Griffin, T., & Bennett, E. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Public perception of helical rim deformities and their correction with ear molding.
Patel, V., Mazzaferro, D. M., Swanson, J. W., Taylor, J. A., & Bartlett, S. P. (2020) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000006400 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Long-term Outcomes of Infant Ear Molding: A 10-year Single-Surgeon Experience
Wu, M., Chang, A. E., Platukus, A. M., Massenburg, B. B., Byrns, C. N., Romeo, D. J., Ng, J. J., Swanson, J. W., Taylor, J. A., & Bartlett, S. P. (2025) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000006673 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fabre, M., Mossaz, C., Christou, P., & Kiliaridis, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Venue
- The European Journal of Orthodontics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-04-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 443-448
- ISSN
- 0141-5387 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2210
- OpenAlex
- W2116496994
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Orthodontics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
- Keywords
- Class III malocclusion, aesthetic judgment, facial soft tissue profile, orthognathic surgery, layperson perception, mandibular plane angle, cephalometric predictors, facial attractiveness
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Cephalometry, Chin, Esthetics, Dental, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Mandible, Maxilla, Nasal Bone, Orthodontics, Sella Turcica, Photography, Dental, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
