Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39245723›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Effects of facial forms and midline deviations and rolls on female facial beauty according to laypeople, orthodontists, and prosthodontists or restorative dentists.

Vahid Rakhshan, Nastaran Atashkar, Atefe Rekabi, Zahra Paydar, Alireza Hashemi Ashtiani, Negin Ashoori, Mehrnaz Moradinejad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vahid RakhshanDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.
Nastaran AtashkarDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Atefe RekabiDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Zahra PaydarDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Alireza Hashemi AshtianiDepartment of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Negin AshooriDentist, Ahvaz, Iran.
Mehrnaz MoradinejadDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. moradinejad-m@ajums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No study has examined the simultaneous effect of facial forms, midline deviations and midline angulations on facial beauty. Therefore, this comprehensive study aimed to evaluate these and many other hypotheses. This psychometric study was performed on 15,042 observations. A female frontal photograph was edited to 45 perceptometric images with controlled anatomical alteration: 3 facial forms (euryprosopic [brachyfacial], mesoprosopic [mesofacial], leptoprosopic [dolichofacial]), each having either 9 bidirectional midline deviations (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm deviated to the left and right) or 7 bidirectional midline angular deviations (0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° deviated to the left and right). One of the photographs were repeated. These 46 images were esthetically judged by 327 participants (243 laypeople, 49 orthodontists, and 35 'prosthodontists or restorative dentists'). Hierarchical mixed-model multiple linear regressions and post hoc tests were adopted to evaluate the simultaneous impacts of the photomodel's facial forms, midline deviations to the right or left, and midline rolls to the right or left plus sex, age, experience, and dental specialty of the referees on their perception of facial beauty as well as the tolerable zones of midline alterations. These were also done separately for each specialty group, and also for each facial face. Ideal combinations of anatomic features were determined using repeated-measures ANOVAs. Differences between esthetic preferences of different groups in terms of each image were assessed using one-way ANOVAs and t-tests (α = 0.05, α = 0.008, α = 0.001). All 5 anatomical features significantly and independently influenced perception of facial beauty. The tolerance threshold for midline deviations was 1 mm deviations to the right and left sides. For midline rolls, the only tolerable form was the no-roll ('on') midline; the judges preferred right-oriented defects over left-sided ones. The most beautiful facial form was mesoprosopic, followed by leptoprosopic. Men perceived the female face slightly more attractive than did women. The viewers' specialty (or lack of it), their age, or their experience did not affect their esthetic preferences. Predictors of esthetic preferences were all 5 anatomical features plus views' sex, but not their dental specialty, age, or experience. Zones of acceptability and also the ideal range of anatomical features were determined.

Indexed as

BeautyDentistsFaceAdultEstheticsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrthodontistsYoung AdultArtAsymmetryBeautyDental estheticsEstheticsFaceFacial formFacial heightFacial indexFacial widthLateralityMidline deviationMidline roll (midline cant, midline angular deviation)OrthodonticsPerceptometricPlastic surgeryProsthodonticsPsychometricsRestorative dentistrySex dimorphismSmile esthetics

Identifiers

PMID39245723
PMCPMC11381531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.