Facial-profile attractiveness changes in adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance
INTRODUCTION Facial profile disharmonies in the anteroposterior (AP) position of the mandible are among the most frequent reasons that patients seek orthodontic treatment. Various methods are available for assessing profile preferences, and differences between them could affect treatment decisions. The purposes of this study were to compare and contrast 3 methods of evaluating profile preferences for the AP position of the mandible. METHODS Facial profile preferences of white orthodontists (n = 28) and white (n = 56) and Japanese-American (n = 55) laypeople were evaluated. The esthetic significance of variations in the AP position of the mandible was investigated by using 3 methods: a traditional semantic differential scale, the Perceptometrics method (Health Programs Intl, Wellesley, Mass), and the implicit association test (IAT). RESULTS Findings from the semantic differential scale show that, overall, there is a general preference among orthodontists and laypeople for an orthognathic profile (P <.001). Findings from the Perceptometrics method indicate that orthodontists consider the most pleasing profile to be more forward than do lay subjects (P <.001). The IAT results show a positive bias among all 3 groups toward orthognathic profiles and a negative bias toward profiles with mandibular retrognathism or prognathism. The IAT suggested that laypeople were more tolerant of mandibular prognathism in men than in women (P <.01), and more tolerant of mandibular retrognathia in white women than in men (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS These results support the benefits of using both implicit and explicit methods to assess facial profile preferences.