Original article
A dental-facial attractiveness scale: Part I. Reliability and validity

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90269-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Since the decision to seek orthodontic treatment is frequently the result of concerns about appearance, assessment of need for treatment should include an impartial evaluation of dental-facial appearance. While some of the standardized techniques for assessing malocclusion have included a consideration of esthetic impairment, they tend to confound this with functional impairment. The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable index that provides relatively objective judgments of dental-facial attractiveness. The subjects in this study were eighth- and ninth-grade children seeking orthodontic treatment and their siblings, and eighth- and ninth-grade children not seeking treatment and their siblings. Photographs of the children were rated for dental-facial attractiveness by lay and dental judges. Children were also assessed for severity of malocclusion by means of the Treatment Priority Index. Children seeking treatment were perceived as significantly less attractive than children not seeking treatment. Dental judges rated children seeking treatment as more attractive than did nondental judges. Intraclass reliability coefficients were moderate to high.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (87)

  • Attractiveness assessment by orthodontists and laypeople judging female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion

    2021, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Kiekens et al,36 Kerr and O’Donnell37 and Lundström et al38 found that professionals were more critical than laypeople. However, Spyropoulos and Halazonetis,39 Tedesco et al,40 Phillips et al,41,42 and Giddon et al43 found that orthodontists were less critical than laypeople. In the current study, the profile with the largest mandibular advancement was given the highest valuation from the orthodontists, whereas laypeople preferred the profile with 3 mm less advancement (profile F).

  • Esthetic evaluation of profile photographs showing various sagittal and vertical patterns

    2021, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Preferences of AP position of the straight Caucasian facial profile

    2013, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, such studies were small in subject and assessor size and conflicting results exist regarding sex differences in the assessment of facial profile attractiveness. Most studies have failed to find any significant gender difference (De Smit and Dermaut, 1984; Johnston, 2005; Barrer and Ghafari, 1985), though Tedesco did find that female raters judged all of the shown images as more attractive than did male raters (Tedesco et al., 1983). Currently there is little known about the influence of sexual preferences on the assessment of the facial profile.

  • A review of the evidence supporting the aesthetic orthodontic treatment need indices

    2012, Progress in Orthodontics
    Citation Excerpt :

    The late 1960 coincided with the emergence of orthodontic indices developed to evaluate the aesthetic aspects of malocclusion. These were based on the individuals’ perception of attractiveness by self and others [i.e., the Eastman Esthetic Index,43 Dental-Facial Attractiveness rating,44,45 Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI),19 and the Standardized Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN index)20]. The DAI is based on the opinions of lay public on what makes the unacceptable aesthetic dental arrangement.

View all citing articles on Scopus

This research was supported by Contract NIH-NIDR-DE-72499. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Dental Research, Los Angeles, Calif., March, 1980.

Assistant Professor, Departments of Fixed Prosthodontics and Behavioral Sciences.

∗∗

Professor, Department of Behavioral Sciences.

∗∗∗

Professor, Department of Orthodontics.

∗∗∗∗

Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics.

∗∗∗∗∗

Professor, Department of Educational Psychology.

View full text