Search

Introduction: An average face is always more aesthetic than an atypical face, so setting soft tissue treatment goals for male and female orthodontic patients required local norms, like average measurements of local aesthetically pleasing profile is more important than adopting universal norms. Aim: To obtain angular and average measurements of softtissue facial profiles for males and females in young adults of Hyderabad, India. Materials and Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad, India, from the December 2007 to January 2010. The study included 104 aesthetically pleasing individuals between the age group of 16 years to 25 years (42 male and 62 female) selected by Orthodontists and laypersons, facial profile photographs were taken with standardised photographic set up with camera using 100 mm macrolens. Photographs were traced and 12 angular measurements were taken. Descriptive statistical analysis was done using software MATLAB (Matrix Laboratory) mean, maximum, minimum value, standard deviation and confidence intervals were calculated. Student's t-test was done to determine sexual dimorphism, and p-value =0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Total of 104 subjects (42 male subjects; mean age: 21.4 years and 62 female subjects; mean age: 19.6 years) were analysed. There was a statistically (p-value <0.05) significant sexual dimorphism in seven of the angular measurements were noted. The nasofrontal (females-141°±4.8°, males-137.86°±5.2°), nasal angle (females -84.4±9°, males-80.7°±6.9°), vertical nasal (males-32.08°±3.3°, females-28.33°±3.636°), nasal dorsal angle (males-180.19°±7.112°, females-174.43°±6.648°), cervico-mental angle (females-98.41°±5.4°, males-95.7°±5.1°), angle of facial convexity (females-173.2°±4.4°, males-169.6°±54.8°), and angle of total facial convexity (females-149°±4.6°, males-144.4°±5.2°), showed sexual dimorphism. In the present study, large variability was observed with the nasolabial (p-value=0.314), and mentolabial (p-value=0.798) angles. Conclusion: Successful orthodontic treatment is mainly measured by patient appraisal only, this can be obtained by giving the locally more aesthetically pleasing facial profile to the patient, setting soft tissue facial profile treatment goals to native individuals is far more important than following universal norms in the total benefit of the patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]