The Effect of Soft Tissue Structure on the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics in Women and Men

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the impact of soft tissue structure on the psychosocial effects of malocclusions in women and men. Material and Methods: The severity of malocclusion was determined in 84 individuals with a Class I skeletal pattern. The Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire was administered to determine the malocclusion perceptions of the patients. Arnett’s soft tissue analysis was performed to determine the soft tissue structure. The difference between the sociodemographic factors and severity of malocclusion averages of men and women was statistically examined. Subsequently, the impact of Arnett’s soft tissue analysis parameters on the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire scores of each gender was evaluated. Results: No statistically significant association was observed between women and men related to the sociodemographic factors and the severity of malocclusions. The number of Arnett’s soft tissue analysis parameters affecting the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire scores was higher in men than women. Women were more psychologically affected by malocclusions, while men were affected by soft tissue structure changes, and women were affected by dental factors. Conclusion: Although the soft tissue structure did not affect the perception of malocclusions in women, women experienced a more severe psychological effect of malocclusion.

Keywords

• Psychosocial
• esthetics
• malocclusion
• questionnaires
• soft tissue

References

1. Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J, et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:239-253.
2. Bruce V, Green PR, Georgeson MA. Visual perception: Physiology, psychology, & ecology. Psychology Press; 2003.
3. Ash MG. Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890-1967: Holism and the quest for objectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
4. Aglarci C, Baysal A, Demirci K, Dikmen F, Aglarci AV. Translation and validation of the Turkish version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46:220-227.
5. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11:309-320.
6. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988. p. 18-74.
7. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:299-312.
8. Sardenberg F, Martins MT, Bendo CB, et al. Malocclusion and oral health-related quality of life in Brazilian school children. Angle Orthod 2013;83:83-89.

9. Birkeland K, Katle A, Løvgreen S, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. Factors influencing the decision about orthodontic treatment. A longitudinal study among 11- and 15-year-olds and their parents. J Orofac Orthop 1999;60:292-307.
10. Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B. Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dentofacial appearance in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:127-132.
11. Feldens CA, Nakamura EK, Tessarollo FR, Closs LQ. Desire for orthodontic treatment and associated factors among adolescents in Southern Brazil. Angle Orthod 2015;85:224-232.
12. Lin F, Ren M, Yao L, He Y, Guo J, Ye Q. Psychosocial impact of dental esthetics regulates motivation to seek orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:476-482.
13. Cai Y, Du W, Lin F, Ye S, Ye Y. Agreement of young adults and orthodontists on dental aesthetics & influencing factors of self-perceived aesthetics. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:113.
14. Hunt O, Hepper P, Johnston C, Stevenson M, Burden D. The Aesthetic Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need validated against lay opinion. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:53-59.
15. Josefsson E, Bjerklin K, Lindsten R. Malocclusion frequency in Swedish and immigrant adolescentsin--fluence of origin on orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:79-87.
16. Bilgic F, Gelgor IE, Celebi AA. Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in central Anatolian adolescents compared to European and other nations' adolescents. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:75-81.
17. Mohammadi S, Eslamian L, Motamedian R. Nasolabial Angle in Profiles Perceived as Attractive: A Scoping Review. Iran J Orthod 2020; 15:1-7.
18. Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AM, Lin SJ. The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134:201-210.
19. Türkkahraman H, Gökalp H. Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004;74:640-647.
20. Erbay EF, Caniklioğlu CM. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:65-72.
21. Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973; 43:34-40.
22. Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:180-187.
23. Al-Gunaid T, Yamada K, Yamaki M, Saito I. Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Yemeni men. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:576.
24. Matoula S, Pancherz H. Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:204-210.
25. Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:208-217.
26. Sforza C, Laino A, D'Alessio R, et al. Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive and normal adolescent boys and girls. Angle Orthod 2008; 78:799-807.
27. Owens EG, Goodacre CJ, Loh PL, et al. A multicenter interracial study of facial appearance. Part 2: A comparison of intraoral parameters. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:283-288.
28. Kim S, Lee Y. Why do women want to be beautiful? A qualitative study proposing a new “human beauty values” concept. PLoS One 2018;13:e0201347.
29. Kuipers G. Beauty and distinction? The evaluation of appearance and cultural capital in five European countries. Poetics 2015;53:38-51.
30. Hahn B, Wolkenberg FA, Ross TJ, et al. Divided versus selective attention: Evidence for common processing mechanisms. Brain Res 2008;1215:137-146.
31. Xu X, Kim ES, Lewis JE. Sex difference in spatial ability for college students and exploration of measurement invariance. Learn Individ Differ 2016;45:176-184.
32. Rennels JL, Cummings AJ. Sex Differences in Facial Scanning: Similarities and Dissimilarities Between Infants and Adults. Int J Behav Dev 2013;37:111-117.
33. Kimura D. Sex differences in the brain. Sci Am 1992; 267:118-125.
34. Linn MC, Petersen AC. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Dev 1985;56:1479-1498.
35. Maurer D, Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci 2002;6:255-260.