We have located links that may give you full text access.
Assessment of the Effect of Simulated Rhinoplasty and Genioplasty on the Facial Profile Attractiveness of Patients with a Convex Face.
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 2018 June 2
AIM: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of rhinoplasty and genioplasty on facial profile attractiveness assessed by orthodontists and laypersons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, posttreatment cephalo-grams of 30 class II patients with convex profile and nasal hump who had undergone camouflage treatment were traced. These profile outlines were modified by computer software to simulate rhinoplasty and genioplasty. Then, all these outlines were converted into silhouettes. There were four groups: no modification, rhinoplasty (R), genioplasty (G), and rhinoplasty plus genioplasty (RG). Esthetic assessment of all patients was done by two panels: six orthodontists and six laypersons. Data were analyzed using Friedman's and Wilcoxon's test with a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The highest mean esthetics scores belonged to RG (3.9 ± 0.6), followed by R (3.5 ± 0.5), G (2.4 ± 0.5), and the initial image of the patients (2.13 ± 0.5). There was a significant improvement following all surgeries as determined by all evaluators (p < 0.001), except for orthodontists who did not find genioplasty more esthetic than no modification (p = 0.139). The mean score of esthetics by orthodontists was more than laypersons in all groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both rhinoplasty and genioplasty improved the attractiveness of the patients' facial profiles. The greatest improvement in the facial profile attractiveness in convex faces was observed after simultaneous nasal hump elimination and chin argumentation procedures.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although both rhinoplasty and genioplasty could improve patients' profile, the best result is achieved when combination of them is used for treatment of convex facial profile patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, posttreatment cephalo-grams of 30 class II patients with convex profile and nasal hump who had undergone camouflage treatment were traced. These profile outlines were modified by computer software to simulate rhinoplasty and genioplasty. Then, all these outlines were converted into silhouettes. There were four groups: no modification, rhinoplasty (R), genioplasty (G), and rhinoplasty plus genioplasty (RG). Esthetic assessment of all patients was done by two panels: six orthodontists and six laypersons. Data were analyzed using Friedman's and Wilcoxon's test with a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The highest mean esthetics scores belonged to RG (3.9 ± 0.6), followed by R (3.5 ± 0.5), G (2.4 ± 0.5), and the initial image of the patients (2.13 ± 0.5). There was a significant improvement following all surgeries as determined by all evaluators (p < 0.001), except for orthodontists who did not find genioplasty more esthetic than no modification (p = 0.139). The mean score of esthetics by orthodontists was more than laypersons in all groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both rhinoplasty and genioplasty improved the attractiveness of the patients' facial profiles. The greatest improvement in the facial profile attractiveness in convex faces was observed after simultaneous nasal hump elimination and chin argumentation procedures.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although both rhinoplasty and genioplasty could improve patients' profile, the best result is achieved when combination of them is used for treatment of convex facial profile patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app