We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry  (English Edition)



Forgotten password?


Int J Esthet Dent 9 (2014), No. 3     1. Aug. 2014
Int J Esthet Dent 9 (2014), No. 3  (01.08.2014)

Page 412-425, PubMed:25126620

The effects of forehead and neck position on esthetics of class I, II and III profiles
Salehi, Parisa / Oshagh, Morteza / Aleyasin, Zeinab S. / Pakshir, Hamid Reza
Introduction: All parts of the face, other than jaw relationships, should be considered in orthodontic treatment planning. The role of forehead and neck in facial esthetics is well known; however, the majority of conventional facial analysis methods have not considered them. Neck and forehead may confer mutual effects on equilibrium and on esthetics of other facial components, and may change the overall convexity/concavity view of the profile. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of anteroposterior position of the forehead and neck on the esthetics of skeletal class I, II and III jaw relationships using profile silhouettes.
Methods: Class II and III jaw relationships were constructed on the silhouette of a class I normal profile by altering the mandibular position. Retruded, normal and protruded positions were also applied for the forehead and neck. Three hundred Iranian laypeople (150 men, 150 women) scored the esthetics of profile silhouettes from 1 to 7. Half of the participants were told to consider the profiles as a man, and the other half were told to consider them as a woman. Data were analyzed using non-parametric methods.
Results: Class I jaw relation was found to be the most beautiful profile followed by class II and III respectively. Esthetics of different positions of the neck and forehead were significantly different (P < 0.05). In subjects with a normal neck and forehead position, and those with a retruded neck, the best esthetic relationship was class I, and the worst was class III. For protruded foreheads, the best jaw relationship was class II for females and class I for males, and the worst was class III for both. In a retruded forehead position, the most preferred jaw relationship was class I, and the worst was class II. For profiles with a protruded neck, the best esthetics was found to be in class III jaw relationship, and the worst was in class II. There was a small difference in scoring for male and female profiles (P < 0.05); there were also small differences in scoring trends of men and women (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: This study showed that the anteroposterior position of the forehead and neck affects the esthetics of jaw relationships in profile view. In laypeople's opinions, in a normal profile, the overall appearance is more important compared to the independent position of the neck and forehead; however, having jaw abnormalities, the neck plays an important independent role. The preferred jaw relation for profiles with each forehead or neck position was introduced.