Perceived Facial Profile Attractiveness in Skeletal Class I, II, and III Malocclusions

Facial profile esthetics play a pivotal role in orthodontic diagnoses, treatment planning, and patient satisfaction; however, the perception of facial attractiveness is inherently subjective and varies according to professional expertise and sociocultural background. This study aimed to compare the perceived attractiveness of standardized sagittal facial profiles across skeletal Class I, II, and III patterns and to investigate the influence of professional training and sociodemographic variables on facial profile evaluations. It was hypothesized that straight facial profiles would be perceived as the most attractive across all observer groups, while deviations from the orthognathic profile would be rated as less attractive, with significant differences based on professional training and sociodemographic variables. This cross-sectional descriptive study included 509 participants, comprising orthodontists, orthodontic Ph.D. students, general dentists, specialist dentists, first- and fifth-year dental students, and laypersons. Seven standardized sagittal facial profile silhouettes (S1–S7) were digitally generated from a standardized lateral facial photograph and evaluated using a seven-point visual analog scale. Participants were also asked to identify the sagittal facial profile range (S8) they ideally preferred to possess. Intergroup comparisons were performed using non-parametric statistical tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis). The straight profile (S3) emerged as the most attractive and most frequently preferred across all participant groups, confirming its role as the dominant esthetic reference. Retrusive profiles, particularly bimaxillary retrusion (S2), mandibular retrognathism (S5), and maxillary retrusion (S6), were consistently rated as the least attractive. Significant differences in esthetic perceptions were observed according to the professional expertise, educational level, age, and nationality, whereas gender had no clinically meaningful effect. Orthodontic training was associated with increasingly critical evaluations, especially for protrusive and convex profiles, while laypersons demonstrated greater esthetic tolerance. Both anatomical characteristics and sociocultural experience shape the perception of facial profile esthetics. While the straight profile represents a widely shared aesthetic ideal, increasing orthodontic expertise accentuates discrepancies between professional standards and public preferences. These findings underscore the necessity of integrating patient-centered and culturally sensitive considerations into contemporary orthodontic treatment planning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2026-02-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app16041702
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Perceived Facial Profile Attractiveness in Skeletal Class I, II, and III Malocclusions

Hülya Şenol, İsmail Ata Orgun, Yasemin Tözün
Applied Sciences
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Perceived Facial Profile Attractiveness in Skeletal Class I, II, and III Malocclusions

Hülya Şenol, İsmail Ata Orgun, Yasemin Tözün
article en

Abstract

Facial profile esthetics play a pivotal role in orthodontic diagnoses, treatment planning, and patient satisfaction; however, the perception of facial attractiveness is inherently subjective and varies according to professional expertise and sociocultural background. This study aimed to compare the perceived attractiveness of standardized sagittal facial profiles across skeletal Class I, II, and III patterns and to investigate the influence of professional training and sociodemographic variables on facial profile evaluations. It was hypothesized that straight facial profiles would be perceived as the most attractive across all observer groups, while deviations from the orthognathic profile would be rated as less attractive, with significant differences based on professional training and sociodemographic variables. This cross-sectional descriptive study included 509 participants, comprising orthodontists, orthodontic Ph.D. students, general dentists, specialist dentists, first- and fifth-year dental students, and laypersons. Seven standardized sagittal facial profile silhouettes (S1–S7) were digitally generated from a standardized lateral facial photograph and evaluated using a seven-point visual analog scale. Participants were also asked to identify the sagittal facial profile range (S8) they ideally preferred to possess. Intergroup comparisons were performed using non-parametric statistical tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis). The straight profile (S3) emerged as the most attractive and most frequently preferred across all participant groups, confirming its role as the dominant esthetic reference. Retrusive profiles, particularly bimaxillary retrusion (S2), mandibular retrognathism (S5), and maxillary retrusion (S6), were consistently rated as the least attractive. Significant differences in esthetic perceptions were observed according to the professional expertise, educational level, age, and nationality, whereas gender had no clinically meaningful effect. Orthodontic training was associated with increasingly critical evaluations, especially for protrusive and convex profiles, while laypersons demonstrated greater esthetic tolerance. Both anatomical characteristics and sociocultural experience shape the perception of facial profile esthetics. While the straight profile represents a widely shared aesthetic ideal, increasing orthodontic expertise accentuates discrepancies between professional standards and public preferences. These findings underscore the necessity of integrating patient-centered and culturally sensitive considerations into contemporary orthodontic treatment planning.

Applied SciencesVol. 16(4)
Cyprus International University (CY)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.