ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
A Comparison of Esthetic Preferences on Female Skeletal Class II Alterations among Laypeople of Different Facial Profiles.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lower lip inclination and chin prominence: interactive effects on facial aesthetics and implications for orthognathic treatment planning.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the influences of assessors' different personal profiles on the esthetic perception of Class II facial profile corrections and the agreement between profile and silhouette images. MATERIALS AND
methodsA profile photo of a female with skeletal Class II was digitally altered into three profile and three silhouette images (most pronounced Class II division 1 characteristic, more retruded upper lip position, and more protruded mandibular position). Ninety-six laypeople from three facial profile groups (straight, convex, and concave profiles) chose these images for facial attractiveness. Data were analyzed using an SPSS program. Cohen's kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients were applied to determine intraparticipant and intra-examiner reliabilities. Chi-square tests were used to test between-group preferences and the relationship of profile preference with other factors. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to test the agreement in selecting profile and silhouette images (
resultsAll groups favored profiles with a protruded mandibular position (11-degree facial contour angle [FCA] and 91-degree nasolabial angle [NLA]). Despite facial profile differences, preference remained consistent (
conclusionAll groups preferred a mandibular advancement-simulating profile. Using the photographs or silhouettes to assess the esthetic preference resulted in a similar trend. However, the flatter profile was more preferred in silhouette than in photograph.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.