Differences in attractiveness comparing female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to study the perceptions of laypeople for digital alterations and the amount of nasolabial angle increase that is tolerable and how much chin-neck length increase is needed to achieve a desirable profile in Class II Division 1 women with mandibular retrognathia. METHODS: The profile image of a white woman with a Class II Division 1 mandibular rethrognatic profile was digitally modified to create 6 images: 3 with stepwise increased nasolabial angles of 113 degrees , 121 degrees , and 129 degrees , and 3 with stepwise increased chin-neck distances of 51, 54, and 57 mm. These images were assessed and ranked by 155 white laypeople. RESULTS: The baseline profile was judged significantly as the least attractive. A nasolabial angle of 129 degrees was judged as unattractive as the baseline profile. Profiles with a chin-neck length of 54 and 57 mm were equally judged as most attractive. CONCLUSIONS: The untreated (baseline) profile was found to be least esthetic, as well as the profile with the largest nasolabial angle. Nasolabial angle increases up to 121 degrees seem to be acceptable. Profiles simulating a chin-neck length increase as produced by surgery seem to be most favored.