Differences In Facial Profile Perception Among Adult Skeletal Malocclusion Patients, Clinicians And Laypersons

Objective:One of the most important goals of orthodontic treatment is to create an aesthetic, well balanced facial profile. Comprehending the patients’facial aesthetic perception, clearing their aesthetic demand is the prerequisite to improve treatment satisfaction. The principle aim of this investigation was to compare the aesthetic perception of skeletal malocclusion patients, clinicians and laypersons using a series of silhouettes with varying mandibular position. In addition, their personality characteristics and psychological characteristics were also been evaluated through questionnaire survey in order to provide reference for clinical planing and effect prediction.Methods:Select one model (female,20 years old) who met all the test requirements and get her natural head position photo as an idealized profile image.The mandibular prominence of an idealized profile image was altered in 2 mm increments from-14 to 14 mm, in order to represent retraction and protrusion of the mandible, respectively. Randomly selected 238 persons were divided into four groups(skeletal II malocclusion patients 68, skeletal III malocclusion patients 60, layperson 80, clinicians 30). They were asked to complete the questionnaires.The questionnaire was about the importance of attractive appearance, self-rating of appearance, the acceptable retraction and protrusion of the mandible, the most acceptable profile, their personality characteristics and psychological characteristics.Results:1.The four groups’ view on the importance of attractive appearance had consistency, while the skeletal III malocclusion patients considered it playing a more important role in daily life.2.Patients with skeletal malocclusion could clearly distinguish the different from ordinary people in their appearance, and the dissatisfaction increased with the extent of severity, especially in the patients with class III malocclusion.3.In mandibular protraction and retraction tolerance threshold, class II patients had significant difference compared with the rest, their tolerance of the mandible protraction relatively tolerant, while tolerance of retraction was relatively harsh; Instead, class III patients had significant difference compared with the rest, their tolerance of the mandible retraction relatively tolerant, while tolerance of protraction is relatively harsh;this phenomenon could be interpreted as "reverse effect".4.Statistically significance differences were found between the three groups in all domains of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire(PIDAQ).Conclusions:1.Significant differences between four groups’profile preferences were determined. On the other hand, a good agreement between them was found. Orthodontists should consider the patient’s opinion when providing the treatment plan. We should not only aim for standards without considering their own opinions. Consequently, the study concluded in providing a foundation for understanding the profile preferences in the skeletal malocclusion population and in assisting final treatment decisions for the orthodontist.2.1n order to follow the model of "living beings-psychology-social medicine"and provide better treatment for patients with malocclusion and obtain satisfying therapeutic effect, the role of psychological intervention was more and more important in the process of orthodontic treatment. Malocclusion could not only cause disorder of stomatognathic function and facial defects, but also do harm to the mental health of adults. It was very important for orthodontists to value such patients’mental problem, and provide necessary psychological rehabilitation at appropriate time and meet their demands.