The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 349-354

  Johnston, D J ^a   Hunt, O ^a   Johnston, C D ^a   Burden, D J ^a   Stevenson, M ^b   Hepper, P ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL CARE; ESTHETICS; FACE; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; JAW; MALE; REFERENCE VALUE; STANDARD; TOOTH OCCLUSION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BEAUTY; CEPHALOMETRY; ESTHETICS, DENTAL; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAW; MALE; REFERENCE VALUES; VERTICAL DIMENSION;

EID: 26644453613     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji023     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ballard C F 1956 Morphology and treatment of Class II division 2 occlusions. Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society, pp. 44-55
2. Behrents R G 1985 Growth in the ageing craniofacial skeleton. Monograph No. 18, Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
3. Bishara S E 1981 Longitudinal cephalometric standards from 5 years of age to adulthood. American Journal of Orthodontics 79: 35-44
4. Broadbent Sr B H, Broadbent Jr B H, Golden W H 1975 Bolton standards of dentofacial developmental growth. Mosby Year Book, St. Louis
5. Brooks V, Hochberg J 1960 A psychophysical study of 'cuteness'. Perceptual and Motor Skills 11: 205
6. Björk A 1947 The face in profile. Svensk Tandlakare Tidskrift 40: Supplement 5B
7. Buss D M 1994 The strategies of human mating. American Scientist 82: 238-247
8. Cochrane S M, Cunningham S J, Hunt N P 1997 Perceptions of facial appearance by orthodontists and the general public. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 31: 164-168
9. Cochrane S M, Cunningham S J, Hunt N P 1999 A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 4: 291-295
10. De Smit A, Dermaut L 1984 Soft-tissue profile preference. American Journal of Orthodontics 86: 67-73
11. Dimitroulis G 1998 A simple classification of orthognathic surgery complications. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 13: 79-87
12. Downs W B 1948 Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. American Journal of Orthodontics 34: 812-840
13. Edler R J 2001 Background considerations to facial aesthetics. Journal of Orthodontics 28: 159-168
14. Erbay E F, Caniklioglu C M 2002 Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 121: 65-72
15. Fedok F G 1996 The ageing face. Facial Plastic Surgery 12: 107-115
16. Giddon D B 1983 Through the looking glasses of physicians, dentists, and patients. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 26: 451-458
17. Hamdan A M, Rock W P 2001 Cephalomctric norms in an Arabic population. Journal of Orthodontics 28: 297-300
18. Hunt N, Rudge S J 1984 Facial profile and orthognathic surgery. British Journal of Orthodontics 11: 126-136
19. Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M 2002 The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. European Journal of Orthodontics 24: 199-204
20. Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, Stevenson M, Hepper P 2005 The influence of mandibular prominence on facial attractiveness. European Journal of Orthodontics 26: 129-133
21. Kerr W J S, O'Donnell J M 1990 Panel perception of facial attractiveness. British Journal of Orthodontics 17: 299-304
22. MacAllister M J, Rock W P 1992 The Eastman standard incisor angulations: are they still appropriate? British Journal of Orthodontics 19: 55-58
23. Maganzini A L, Tseng J Y K, Epstein J Z 2000 Perception of facial esthetics by native Chinese participants by using manipulated digital imagery techniques. Angle Orthodontist 70: 393-399
24. McNamara Jr J A, Ellis III E 1988 Cephalometric analysis of untreated adults with ideal facial and occlusal relationships. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 3: 221-231
25. Michiels G, Sather A H 1994 Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 9: 95-103
26. Mills J R E 1982 Principles and practice of orthodontics. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
27. Peck H, Peck S 1970 A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthodontist 40: 284-318
28. Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E 1995 Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 10: 127-135
29. Prahl-Andersen B 1978 The need for orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthodontist 48: 1-9
30. Proffit W R, Fields H W 2000 Contemporary orthodontics. Mosby, St. Louis
31. Riedel R A 1957 An analysis of dentofacial relationships. American Journal of Orthodontics 43: 103-119
32. Sergl H G, Zentner A, Krause G 1998 An experimental study of the esthetic effect of facial profiles. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 59: 116-126
33. Shaw W C, Lewis H G, Robertson N R 1975 Perception of malocclusion. British Dental Journal 138: 211-216
34. Tallgren A 1957 Changes in adult face height due to ageing, wear and loss of teeth and prosthetic dentistry. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 15: Supplement 24
35. Taylor W H, Hitchcock H P 1966 The Alabama analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics 52: 245-265