Aesthetically acceptable cephalometric treatment goal differences for straight, concave, and convex facial profiles between genders

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose Modern orthodontics focus on achieving functional and aesthetically pleasing results. However, traditional cephalometric norms do not necessarily correspond to facial aesthetics, leading to unsatisfactory treatment outcomes. This study aimed to establish cephalometric treatment goals for each facial profile (concave, straight, and convex) by comparing the cephalometric variables of each type. Materials and methods The post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 180 orthodontic subjects (18–37 years old) were assessed. Profile silhouettes were scored for attractiveness by 15 Thai laypersons using a 5-point Likert scale. Cephalograms scoring above 3 were divided into the three facial profile groups (n = 60). Fifty-five cephalometric variables were measured, and the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results One-hundred and eighty aesthetically acceptable silhouettes comprised concave, straight, and convex facial profiles with a 1:1 male-to-female ratio. All types shared similarities in the cranial base and maxilla. The convex profiles more frequently displayed skeletal and dental base Class II, skeletal open bite, retruded and retroclined upper incisors, protruded and proclined lower incisors, obtuse nasolabial angles, protruded upper and lower lips, and retruded chins. The opposite findings were observed in the concave profiles. However, all profile types had similar upper and lower teeth relative to A point to pogonion line; and upper and lower lip positions relative to subnasale to soft tissue pogonion line and the true vertical line passing through soft tissue nasion. Conclusion Universal treatment goals for all profile types combined with customized values for each profile type to achieve an aesthetically acceptable facial profile are recommended.