Impact of Bimaxillary Position on Esthetic Preferences among Health Professionals and Lay Persons

  • Negin Esnaashari School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
  • Shabnam Ajami Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  • Morteza Oshagh Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Keywords: Facial Profile, Beauty, Orthodontics, Cephalometric, Esthetics, dentistry


Background: Facial harmony and beauty make people attractive. One of the important parts that has a significant role in esthetics is the position of maxillary and mandibular bones. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different positions of both jaws on esthetic preferences among health professionals and laypersons.Materials and Methods: Two colored photographs of e profile were selected among one-hundred patients by evaluating the soft tissue parameters. Photographs were changed with Onyx-ceph software. All soft tissue landmarks of lower 3rd part of the profiles were displaced in the horizontal plane by 2mm intervals relative to the true vertical plane. We selected different group of people as judges, who were lay persons (N=100), general dentists (N=100), plastic surgeons (N=25), orthodontists (N=25), and maxillofacial surgeons (N=24); and asked them to select their preferred profile and acceptable anterior and posterior limits. ANOVA and LSD post-hoc tests were carried out to determine the differences among the responses of groups.Results: No significant differences were found among the judges´ opinion regarding the most attractive profile. Ranges for male photographs were statistically different in evaluators groups. A wider range was accepted for the male subject by plastic surgeons and general dentists which was significant comparing to laypersons (P<0.05).Conclusion:  All of the evaluators selected the straight profile as the most preferred one. However, the range of acceptability was the narrowest in the layperson group in comparison with plastic surgeons and general dentists. Gender of the judges did not have an impact on their selections.


Eisenthal Y, Dror G, Ruppin E. Facial attractiveness: beauty and machine. Neural comput. 2006;18(1):119-42.

Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu CH. Their ideas of beauty are, on the wholes the same as ours: consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68:261-79

Jones D. Five populations. In: Jones D, editor. Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum Anthropology Publication; 1996. P.45-64.

Perrett Dl, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998;394(6696):884-7.

Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994;368(6468):239-42.

Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos. 1899;41(18):248-64.

Burston CJ. The integumental profile. Am J Orthod. 1958;44(1):1-25.

Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod. 1954;24(3):121-69.

Dongieux J, Sassouni V. The contribution of mandibular positioned variation to facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1969;50(4):334-9.

Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(4):284-318.

De smit A, Dermaut l. Soft tissue profile preferences. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(1):67-73.

Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod. 1973;43(1):34-40.

Farrow L A, Zarrinnnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans and esthetic evaluation and treatment consideration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104(3): 240-50.

Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch PJ, Gakunga P. Esthetic preferences of European American,Hispanish American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthp. 2009;135(4):S87-95.

Rajvinder S. preference of lip position in varying mandibular sagittal position. J Int Oral Health. 2011;3(5):46-59.

Jacobson A, Vlachos C. Soft tissue evaluation. In: Jacobson A, Jacobson R, editors. Radiographic cephalometry. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2006. P.205-17.

Steiner CC. Cephalometric in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29(1):8-29.

Ricketts RM. Esthetic, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod. 1968;54(4):272-89.

Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakashima A, Counts AL. Anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored Japanese facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(2):373-85.

Deloach N. Soft tissue facial profile of North American Blacks, a self assessment. [Master thesis]. Detroit, Michigan: University of Detroit; 1978.

Martin JG. Racial ethnocentrism and judgment of beauty. J Soc Psychol. 1964;63:59-63.

Cross JF, Cross J. Age, sex, race and the perception of facial beauty. Develop Psychol. 1971;5(3):433-9.

Mejia-Maidl M, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, Giddon DB. Preferences for facial profiles between Mexican Americans and Caucasian. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):953-8.

Hier LA, Evans CA, BeGole EA, Giddone DB. Comparison of preferences in lip position using computer animated imaging. Angle Orthod. 1999;69(3):231-8.

How to Cite
Esnaashari, N., Ajami, S., & Oshagh, M. (2014). Impact of Bimaxillary Position on Esthetic Preferences among Health Professionals and Lay Persons. Galen Medical Journal, 3(2), 81-89.
Original Article