ArticlePeerJ2025
Role of initial facial attractiveness in the perceived aesthetic outcome of convex profile treatment.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Association Between Facial Profile Attractiveness and Full-Face Attractiveness in Individuals With Convex Facial Profiles.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facial attractiveness significantly influences various life outcomes, motivating individuals to seek interventions for improvement. However, the actual benefits of such interventions and patient satisfaction largely depend on the perceived changes in facial appearance. This perception may be influenced by certain mediating factors. This study aimed to investigate how pre-treatment facial attractiveness affects the perceived facial appearance changes in convex profile patients undergoing orthodontic-surgical Methods: The sample comprised 36 non-growing Class II Division 1 patients, divided evenly between treatments, with similar demographics, overjet, and treatment durations. The treatments had distinct effects on the facial contour angle (orthodontics-only: -1.2 ± 2.1°, combined orthodontics/surgery: -6.2 ± 3.9°; Results: The overall facial attractiveness was lower than average (mean: 36.1), with orthodontics-only patients being significantly more attractive than patients that received surgery (mean difference: 8.2%, Conclusions: The study highlights the critical role of facial attractiveness in shaping perceived treatment outcomes. Pre-treatment facial and profile attractiveness were inversely associated with perceived changes, suggesting that patients with initially lower attractiveness experienced more noticeable improvements. After accounting for facial attractiveness, combined orthodontic and surgical treatment was perceived significantly more favorably than orthodontic treatment alone in patients with convex facial profiles. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating facial attractiveness considerations into patient counseling and treatment planning.
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.