ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Holdaway analysis exhibits the highest correlation with facial profile attractiveness among nine cephalometric analyses.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo investigate the correlation between nine commonly used cephalometric analyses and facial profile attractiveness and to explore an optimized combination of cephalometric measures.
methodsSixteen nonprofessional evaluators assessed the profile attractiveness of 210 untreated Chinese adults using a visual analog scale. Eighty-seven cephalometric measures were obtained from nine analyses (Burstone, Downs, Holdaway, Jarabak, McNamara, Ricketts, Steiner, Tweed, and Wylie). Quadratic regression analysis was employed to identify measures significantly correlated with facial profile attractiveness and to calculate their maximum attractiveness values (MAVs). Stepwise regression was applied to assess the explanatory power of each analysis for profile attractiveness and to construct optimized predictive models.
resultsThe explanatory power of the nine analyses for attractiveness variation was ranked as follows: Holdaway (41.5%) > Ricketts (37.6%) > Steiner (36.8%) > Burstone (35.7%) > Tweed (35.6%) > Downs (33.9%) > McNamara (24.3%) > Wylie (13.2%) > Jarabak (6.1%). Among individual measures, the H-angle, ANB (°), A-Npog (mm), and NA-APo (°) accounted for more than 26% of attractiveness variation. A five-indicator model comprising H-angle (28.8%; MAV = 17.2°), L1-APog (14.6%; MAV = 0.5 mm), Wits appraisal (4.5%; MAV = 0.1 mm), ANS-Me/N-Me (4.2%; MAV = 54%), and ANS-Ptm (3.3%; MAV = 46.7 mm) explained 55.4% of the variation.
conclusionAmong the nine cephalometric analyses, the Holdaway method exhibited the strongest explanatory power for variation in profile attractiveness. The newly constructed five-indicator model may provide more precise aesthetic references for orthodontic and orthognathic treatments.
Indexed as
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.