RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Magazines and television displays are not merely crammed with faces-they are filled with appealing faces, and both men and women are interested in a suitable partner's appearance. This study investigated what makes a face attractive and whether perception-related differences exist between facial attractiveness and facial components. METHODS: In this descriptive-analytical study, frontal and lateral view photographs of 18 young adults (9 male and 9 female) in Class I, II, and III malocclusions were assessed by 90 orthodontists, dentists, models, and laypeople using a 7-point Likert scale in terms of attractiveness. Based on scores, attractive and unattractive groups were formed. Using image analysis software, a range of defined length, angles, perimeter, and area for lips, nose, and chin were measured for the attractive group. For statistical analysis, each group was compared using a 1-way analysis of variance. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors of different parameters to the attractiveness of facial components. RESULTS: Overall full-face width, upper lip angle, lip area, and mentolabial angle was significantly different in all the 3 classes (P ≤0.05). In Class I malocclusion, nasolabial angle among orthodontists, nasofrontal angle among dentists, lower lip among models, and full-face width among laypeople were responsible for facial attractiveness variation. In Class II malocclusion, nose to upper lip among orthodontists, Cupid's bow among dentists, wider face among models, and upper lip among layperson were responsible for variation in facial attractiveness. In Class III malocclusion, lower lip angle among orthodontists and dentists, Cupid's bows among models and layperson was responsible for variation in facial attractiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Class I faces, lips (Cupid's bows, lower lips, lip areas), nose (nasolabial, nasofrontal, and nasomental angles), and chin (lower lip to chin) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face, while in Class II faces, lips (upper lip length, interbow distance, lower lip angle), nose (full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus), as well as a greater full-face width contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face. In Class III faces, lips (lower lip angle, upper lip length), nose (nose tip angle, full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus depth) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face.
