These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [A comparative study of cephalometric evaluation criteria of the cutaneous profile].
    Author: De Coster T.
    Journal: Orthod Fr; 1991; 62 Pt 2():559-72. PubMed ID: 1749613.
    Abstract:
    The objectives of this study is to challenge the soft tissue profile standards of esthetics and to compare them with the feeling and the sense of beauty of the large public. The facial profile of one hundred fifty-two cinema stars and top models (seventy-one men and eighty-one women) were analysed. Twenty three measurements were taken among the most used and widely accepted. These references come from the works of very reknown orthodontists and researchers: BURSTONE, HOLDAWAY, MERRIFIELD, PECK and PECK, RICKETTS, STEINER, WORMS (as described by MOSHIRI). The results demonstrate, after statistical analysis that: some values are very different compared with the references; those discrepancies neither concern the same values nor for the same amount, or to the same direction for the male or the female samples. The mean male soft tissue profile is more concave, prognathic type with more retruded upper and lower lips and more reduced lower face height than the standards described by the authors. The mean women soft tissue profile tends to be more convex with a relatively more protruded upper lip and a more retrognathic mandible than the "standards". The whole face height is significantly reduced with a more marked discrepancy for the nasal height and the lower lip length. The nasal prominence is also reduced compared with the norms. It appears then that we cannot trust anymore references that do not take into account differences between men and women ideal facial profiles for the analysis of soft tissue profile in orthodontics and maxillo-facial surgery. The values described by the authors, which are our daily standards, do not seem to match the large public sense of esthetics and therefore our patients feeling of beauty.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]