EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Home Tous les numéros Volume 85 / Numéro 1 (Mars 2014) Orthod Fr, 85 1 (2014) 3-29 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Orthod Fr
Volume 85, Numéro 1, Mars 2014
86e réunion scientifique de la S.F.O.D.F. − L'orthodontie : thérapeutique et beauté
Page(s) 3 - 29
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2013073
Publié en ligne 1 avril 2014
  1. Ackerman M, Ackerman J. Smile paralysis and design in the digital era. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:221–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackermann MB. Digital video as a clinical tool in orthodontics: dynamic smile design in diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Mc Namara JA, Ed. 29th Annual Moyer’s symposium. Vol 40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Orthodontics, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  3. Albino JE, Tedesco LA, Conny DJ. Patient perceptions of dental facial esthetics: shared concerns in orthodontics and prosthodontics. J Prosth Dent 1984;52:9–13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Albino JE, Tedesco LA, Kiyak HA. Esthetic issues in behavioral dentistry. Ann Behav Med 1990;12:148–155. [Google Scholar]
  5. Albino JE, Tedesco LA. Esthetic need for orthodontic treatment. In: Melsen B. Ed. Current controversies in orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., 1991:11–24. [Google Scholar]
  6. Albino JE. Development of methodology for behavioral measurements related to malocclusion (Final Report: Contract N° , NO1-DE-27499). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Dental Research, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  7. Al-Khateeb SH. Perception of facial profile attractiveness of different antero-posterior and vertical proportion. Eur J Orthod 2010;32 (4). [Google Scholar]
  8. Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Averaged faces are attractive but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci 1991;2:123–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop;03:299–312. [Google Scholar]
  10. Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part 2. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993;103:395–441. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:62–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perception of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod 1985;88:323–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Benson P, Perrett DI. Face to face with the perfect image. New Scientist 1992;133:32–35. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bertamini M, Bennet KM. The effect of leg length on perceived attractiveness of simplified stimuli. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol 2009;3:233–250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: Assessment by lay people. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:639–644. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bittner C, Pancherz H. Malocclusions et morphologie faciale. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop (Ed Fr) 1990;2:270–278. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1997;1:5–16. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bookstein FL. Applying landmark methods to biological outline data. In: Mardia KV, Gill CA, Dryden II editors. Image fusion and shape variability. Leeds UK: University of Leeds Press 1966:59–70. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bookstein FL. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimension. Statistical Science 1986;1:181–242. [Google Scholar]
  20. Burstone CJ. Integumental contour and extension patterns. Angle Orthod 1959;29:93–104. [Google Scholar]
  21. Buss D. The evolution of desire (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, 2003:54–55. [Google Scholar]
  22. Calignano F, Vezzetti E. Soft tissue diagnosis in maxillofacial surgery: a preliminary study on three-dimensional face geometrical features-based analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010;34:200–211. [Google Scholar]
  23. Camara CA. Aesthetics in Orthodontics: Six horizontal smile lines. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15:116–131. [Google Scholar]
  24. Caruso AJ, Stanhope SI, McGuire DA. New technique for acquiring three-dimensionnal orofacial nonspeech motion. Dysphagia 1989;4:127–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cevidanes LHC, Figueiredo Oliveira AE, Grauer D, Styner M, Proffit WR. Clinical Application of 3D Imaging for Assessment of Treatment Outcomes. Semin Orthodontics 2011;17:72–80. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cevidanes LHC, Motta A, Proffit WR, Ackerman JL, Stynere M. Cranial base superimposition for 3-dimensional evaluation of soft-tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;137:120–129. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and three groups of clinicians. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1999;14:291–295. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness/ Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of Female Beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986,50:925–935. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Cunningham SJ. The psychology of facial appearance. Dent Update 1999;26:438–443. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu CH. Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;68:261–279. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993,104:180–187. [Google Scholar]
  32. Damstra J, Fourie Z, De Witt M, Ren Y. A three dimensional comparison of a morphometric and conventional cephalometric midsagittal plan for craniofacial asymmetry. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:285–294. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Ren Y. Comparison between two-dimensional and midsagittal three-dimensional cephalometric measurements of dry human skulls. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;49:392–395. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Davis ST, Jahnke JC. Unity and the golden section: rules for aesthetic choice? Am J Psychol 1991;104:257–277. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Crawford JR, Welling LL, Little AC. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc R Soc B London 2010;277:2405–2410. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. De Coster Th. Etude comparative des critères d’évaluation céphalométrique du profil cutané. Orthod Fr 1991;62:559–572. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:609–625. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Deffenbacher KA, Vetter T, Johanson J, O’Toole AJ. Facial aging, attractiveness, and distinctiveness. Perception 1998;27:1233–1243. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Dixson BJ, Dixson AF, Bishop PJ, Parish A. Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: a New Zealand-US Comparative Study. Arch Sex Behav 2010;99:798–806. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Dixson BJ, Dixson AF, Li B, Anderson MJ. Studies of human physique and sexual attractiveness: sexual preferences of men and women in China. Am J Hum Biol 2007;19:88–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Dixson BJ, Halliwell G, East R, Whignarajah P, Anderson MJ. Masculine Somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Arh Sex Behav 2003;32:29–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Dunlevy HA, White RP, Turvey TA. Professional and lay judgment of facial esthetic changes following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1987;3:151–158. [Google Scholar]
  43. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good, but...: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull 1991;110:109–128. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Edler RJ. Background Considerations to Facial Aesthetics. J Orthod 2001;28:159–168. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ekman P, Davidson RJ, Friesen WV. The Duchenne Smile/Emotion expression and brain physiology II. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;58;342–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ekman P. Hand Book of Cognition and Emotion 1990 T. Dalgleish and Power. Sussex UK. John Wiley & sons Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  47. English BG, Ashmore R. Beauty before the eyes of the beholder: the cultural encoding of beauty types in magazine advertising and music television. J Advertising 1994,23:49–64. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Erbay EF, Caniklioǧlu CM. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2002;121:65–72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Farronato G, Garagiola U, Dominici A, Periti G, de Nardi S, Carletti V, Farronato D. “Ten-point” 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2010;11:2–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Faure J, Baron P, Justumus P. Agénésies des incisives latérales supérieures: évaluation statistique des traitements par substitution. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 1994;28:211–224. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  51. Faure J, Casteigt J. Chirurgie orthognathique: le préjudice esthétique initial et son amélioration thérapeutique. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 1997,31:319–327. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  52. Faure J, Cisse A, N’Dindin-Guigan E, Aka A, Roux H, Diagne F. Appréciation du préjudice esthétique lié aux dysmorphoses maxillo-faciales en Afrique de l’Ouest. Rev Odonto-Stomatol-Chir Maxillo-Fac Afr 1997;4:30–40. [Google Scholar]
  53. Faure J, Guignes P. Appreciation of therapeutic results: an esthetic test. 31st Annual Meeting Lyon, 16-17 september 1994 [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1995;74:196. [Google Scholar]
  54. Faure J, Marshal-Sixou Ch, Dah-Jouonzo H, Oueiss A, Baron P. Three dimensionnal 14 points cephalometric analysis: compensation of maxillo-facial dysmorphisms. Orthod Fr 2008;79:251–261. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Faure J, Oueiss A, Treil J, Braga J. Etude en morphométrie géométrique des asymétries faciales: rapports avec les formes basi-crâniennes et les pathologies maxillo-faciales ou occlusales. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 2013;47:157–171. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  56. Faure J. Le préjudice esthétique des grandes dysmorphies antéro-postérieures et verticales : son évolution après traitement orthodontique. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 1998;32:275–295. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  57. Faure J. Limite chirurgicale en classe II hyperdivergente. J Edg 1994;29:47–57. [Google Scholar]
  58. Faure J. A propos des troubles morphologiques du groupe incisivo-canin supérieur, chez deux sœurs jumelles. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 2012; 46:427–441. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  59. Faure J. Gestion quantitative des troubles morphologiques du groupe incisive-canin. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 2012;46:417–425. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  60. Frederik DA, Fessler DMT, Haselton MG. Do representation of male muscularity differ in men’s and women’s magazines? Body Image 2004;V2:81–86. [Google Scholar]
  61. Freedman FE, Carter MM, Sbrocco T, Gray JJ. Do men hold African-American and Caucasian women to different standards of beauty. Eat Behav 2007;8:319–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Freedman FE, Carter MM, Sbrocco T, Gray JJ. Ethnic differences in preference for female weight and waist-to-hip ratio: a comparison of African-American and white American college and community samples. Eat Behav 2004;5:191–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Frindel F. Pour un meilleur positionnement du sourire. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 2001;35:473–497; 2002;36:82–92. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  64. Furnham A, Tan T, Mc Manus C. Waist-to-hip ratios and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Pers Individ Dif 1997;22:539–549. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Giddon DB, Sconzo R, Kinchen JA, Evans CA. Quantitative comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preference. Angle Orthod 1995;66:441–448. [Google Scholar]
  66. Giddon DB, Bernier DL, Kinchen JA, et al. Comparison of computer-animated programs for quantifying facial profile preference [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1995;74:140. [Google Scholar]
  67. Giddon DB, Hershon LE, Lennartson B. Discrepancy between objective and subjective profile measures. Scand J Dent Res 1974,82:527–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Giddon DB, Sconzo R, Kinchen JA, Evans CA. Psychological comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1994;73:21–29. [Google Scholar]
  69. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Seminars Orthod 1995;1:82–93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  70. Glassenberg AN, Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Little AC, Debrunine LM. Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual and homosexulanmen and women. Arch Sex Behav 2010;39:1286–1296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  71. Goshman DS. Some correlates of children’s health beliefs and potential health behaviour. J Health Soc Behav 1972,12:148–154. [Google Scholar]
  72. Goshman DS. The measurement and development of dentally relevant motives. J Health Soc Behav 1975;35:160–164. [Google Scholar]
  73. Gross MM, Trotman CA, Moffatt KS. A comparison of threedimensional and twodimensionnal analyses of facial motion. Angle Orthod 1996;66:189–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Halberstadt J, Rhodes G. It’s not just average faces that are attractive: computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychon Bull Rev 2003;10:149–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Hall D, Taylor RW, Jacobson A, Sadowsky PL, Bartolucci A. The perception of optimal profile in African Americans versus white American as assessed by orthodontists and the lay public. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;118:514–525. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Hanis SB, Kau CH, Souccar MM, English JD, Pirttiniemi P, Valkama M, Harila V. Facial morphology of Finnish children with and without developmental hip dysplasia using 3D facial templates. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:229–237. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Haxton JM, Giddon DB. Quantitation of tolerance for cranio-facial deviation [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1985,64:292. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hershon LE, Giddon DB. Determinants of facial profile self-perception. Am J Orthod 1980;78:279–295. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Hier LA, Evans CA, BeGole EA, Diddon DB. Comparison of preferences in lip position using computer animated imaging. Angle Orthod 1999;69:231–238. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Hoss K, Sameshima GT, Grubb JE, Sinclair PM. The accuracy of video imaging for mixed dentition and adolescent treatment. Angle Orthod 1997;67:355–364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Hunt O, Hepper P, Johnston C, Stevenson M, Burden D. The aesthetic component of the index of orthodontic treatment validated against lay opinion. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:53–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M. The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractivenes ratings. Eur J Orthod;24:199–204. [Google Scholar]
  83. Incraperaa AK, Kau CH, English JD, McGroryd K, Sarvere DM. Soft Tissue Images from Cephalograms Compared With Those from a3D Surface Acquisition System. Angle Orthod 2010;80:58–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Jefferson Y. Facial Beauty: Establishing a Universal Standard. IJO;15:9–22. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jenny J, Cons NC, Kohout F, Frazier PJ. Test of a method to determine socially acceptable occlusal conditions. Los Angeles, CA: American Association for Dental Research 1980. [Google Scholar]
  86. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;108:162–167. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  87. Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental to facial midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. EJO 1999;21:517–522. [Google Scholar]
  88. Johnston V, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethol Sociobiol 1993;14:183–199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  89. Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness of five populations. Hum Nature 1993;4:271–296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  90. Kanazawa S. Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence 2011;39:7–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  91. Kau CH, Richmond S. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology surface changes in untreated children from 12 to 14 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;134:751–760. [Google Scholar]
  92. Kau CH, Richmond S, Incrapera AK, English J, Xia JJ. Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2007;3:97-110. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Kau CH. Creation of the virtual patient for the study of facial morphology. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011;19:615–22, viii. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Kau CH, Zhurov A, Richmond S, Bibb R, Sugar A, Knox J, Hartles F. The 3-Dimensional Construction of the Average 11-Year-Old Child Face: A Clinical Evaluation and Application. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:1086–1092. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Kau, CH, Richmond S, Zhurov A, Ovsenik M, Tawfik W, Borbely P, Englishg JD. Use of 3-dimensional surface acquisition to study facial morphology in 5 populations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;137:S56.e9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  96. Kendall G. Shape manifolds, Procustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull London Math Soc 1984;16:81–121. [Google Scholar]
  97. Kissler J, Bäuml KH. Effects of the beholder’s age on the perception of facial attractiveness. Acta Psychol 2000;104:145–166. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  98. Kiyak HA, Zeitler DL. Self-assessment of profile and body image among orthognathic surgery patients before and two years after surgery. J Maxillofac Surg 1988;46:365–371. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  99. Kokich VO, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Lagravere MO, Gordon JM, Guedes IH, Flores-Mir C, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Reliability of traditional cephalometric landmarks as seen in three-dimensional analysis in maxillary expansion treatments. Angle Orthod 2009;79:1047–1056. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Lagravere MO, Mayor PW, Carey J. Sensitivity analysis for plane orientation in three dimensional cephalometric analysis based on superimposition of serial cone beam computed tomography images. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2010;39:400–408. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  102. Langlois JH, Kalanikis, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A meta-analytical and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2000;126:390–423. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  103. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychol Sci 1994;5:214–220. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  104. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1990;1:115–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  105. Lee JY, Han Q, Trotman CA. Three-dimensional facial imaging: accuracy and considerations for clinical applications in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2004;74:587–593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Lim JY, Giddon DB. Self/other perception and facial anthropometry in Korean (K), Korean-American (KA) and Caucasian (C) females [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1991;70:430. [Google Scholar]
  107. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism ans symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci 2001;268:39–44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  108. Maxwell R, Kiyak HA. Dentofacial appearance: a comparison of patient self-assessment techniques. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1991;6:123–131. [Google Scholar]
  109. McKoy-White J, Evans CA, Viana G, Anderson NK, Giddone DG. Facial profile preferences of black women, before and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;129:17–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Mealey L, Bridgstock R, Townsend GC. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999;76:151–158. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Michiels G, Sather AH. Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1994;9:95–103. [Google Scholar]
  112. Moerenhout BAMML, Gelaude F, Swennen GRJ, Casselman JW, Van der sloten J,Mommaerts JMY. Accuracy and repeatability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements used in the determination of facial indices in the laboratory setup. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2009;37:18–23. [Google Scholar]
  113. Morley J. The role of cosmetic dentistry in restauring of youthfull appearance. 1999. J Am Dent Assoc 130:1166–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Moro A, Correra P, Boniello R, Gasparini G, Pelo S. Three-dimensional analysis in facial asymmetry: comparison with model analysis and conventional two-dimensional analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20:417–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Myers PN, Biocca FA. The elastic body image: the effect of television advertising and programming on body image distorsions in young women. J Commun 1992;42:108–133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  116. Nakajima E, Maeda T, Yanagisawa M. The Japanese sense of beauty and facial proportions II. The beautiful face and the Formula rule. Quintessence Internat 1985;9:629–637. [Google Scholar]
  117. Nalçaci R, Öztürk, F, Sökücü O. A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:100–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Nguyen DD, Turley PK. Changes in the caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;114:208–217. [Google Scholar]
  119. Olszewski R, Tanesy O, Cosnard G, Zech F, Reychler H. Reproducibility of osseous landmarks used for computed tomography based three-dimensional cephalometric analyses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:214–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Oueiss A, Pages C, Treil J, Braga J, Baron P, Faure J. Étude des asymétries dans les grandes dysmorphies antéropostérieures. Orthod Fr 2010;81:235–244. [Google Scholar]
  121. Oueiss A. Les rapports tridimensionnels de la base du crâne et du massif maxillo-facial : intérêt en orthodontie et en anthropobiologie. Thèse Doctorat d’Université Toulouse : Univ Toulouse III, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  122. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:105–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Peck S. Beauty is youth, youth beauty? Sci News 1994;146:115. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  125. Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci 2001;268:1617–1623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  126. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 1994,368:239–242. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak IS, Rowland DR, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, et al. Effect of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 1998;394:884–887. [Google Scholar]
  128. Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1995;10:127–135. [Google Scholar]
  129. Pietila T, Pietila I. Parent’s views on their own child’s dentition compared with an orthodontist’s assessment. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:309–316. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Prahl-Andersen B, Boersma H, Van der Linden FPGM, Moore AW. Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 1979,98:209–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Prahl-Anderson B. The need for orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1978;48:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Principe CP, Langlois JH. Shifting the prototype. Experience with faces influences affective and affectiveness preference. Soc Cogn 2006;30:109–120. [Google Scholar]
  133. Rankin M, Borah GL. Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plast Reconst Surg 2003;111:2140–2146. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  134. Ramsey-Rennels JL, Langlois JH. Infants’ differential Processing of Female and Male Faces. Psychol Sci 2005;15:50–62. [Google Scholar]
  135. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Lee K, McKay R, Akamatsu S. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception 2002;30:611–625. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Richins ML. Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. J Consumer Research 1991;18:71–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  137. Ricketts RM. Divine proportions in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg 1982;9:401–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Ricketts RM. The biological significance of the divine proportion and fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 1982;81:351–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Rikowski A, Grammer K. Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci 1999;266:869–874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Ritter DE, Gandini LG, dos Santos Pinto A, Ravelli DB, Lock A. Analysis of the smile photograph. Word J Orthod 2006;7:279–285. [Google Scholar]
  141. Ritter JM, Casey RJ, Langlois JH. Adults’ response to infants varying in apperance of age and attractiveness. Child Dev 1991;62:68–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Robins AH. Biological perspectives on human pigmentation. Cambridge University Press 1, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  143. Romani KL, Agahi F, Nanada R, Zernik JH. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical differences in facial profiles by orthodontists and lay people. Angle Orthod 1993;63:175–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Rubenstein AJ, Kalakanis L, Langlois JH. Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev Psychol 1999;35:848–855. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Sarver DM, Ackerman MB. Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: Part 1. Evolution of the concept and dynamic records for smile capture. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:4–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  146. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: The smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001;120:98–111. [Google Scholar]
  147. Seagera DC, Kau CH, English JD, Tawfikd W, Bussae HI, El Yazeed A,Ahmedf M. Facial morphologies of an adult Egyptian population and an adult Houstonian white population compared using 3D imaging. Angle Orthod 2009;79:991–999. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Secord PF, Backman CW. Malocclusion and psychological factors. J Am Dent Assoc 1959;59:931–938. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Sforza C, de Menezes M, Ferrario VF. Soft- and hard-tissue facial anthropometry in three dimensions: what’s new. J Anthropol Sci 2013;91:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  150. Shaw WC, Meek SC, Jones DS. Nicknames, teasing, harassment and the salience of dental features among school children. Br J Orthod 1980;7:75–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Shaw WC. Influence of children’s dental-facial appearance on their social attractiveness as juged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod 1981;79:399–415. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Shelly AD, Southard TE, Southard KA, Casko JS, Jakobsen JR, Fridrich KL, Mergen JL. Evaluation of profile esthetic change with mandibular advancement surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;117:630–637. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  153. Singh D. Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995;69(6):1089–1101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Snow S.R. Esthetic smile analysis of maxillary anterior tooth width: The golden percentage. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:177–184. [Google Scholar]
  155. Sorokowski P, Pavlovski B. Adaptive preference for leg length in a potential Partner. Evol Hum Behav 2008;29:86–91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  156. Sorokowski P. Attractivenes of legs length in Poland and Great Britain. J Hum Ecol 2000;31:148. [Google Scholar]
  157. Spyropoulos MN, Halazonetis DJ. Significance of soft tissue profile on facial esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001;119:461–471. [Google Scholar]
  158. Stenvik A, Espeland L, Linge BO, Linge L. Lay attitudes to dental appearance and need for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:271–277. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Stephen I, Coetzee V, Law Smith MJ. Carotenoid and melanine pigment affect perceived human health. Evol Hum Behav 2011;32:216–227. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  160. Stephen I, Coetzee V, Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI. Skin blood perfusion and oxygenation affects perceived human health. PLoS One 2009. 4:e 5083. [Google Scholar]
  161. Stephen I, Law Smith MJ, Stirrat MR, Perrett DI. Facial skin coloration affects perceived health of human faces. Int J Primatol 2009;30:845–857. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. Stromboni Y. Facial aesthetics in Orthodontic Treatments with and without extractions. Eur J Orthod 1979;1:201–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. Strzalko J, Kaszycka KA. Physical attractiveness: interpersonal and intrapersonal variability of assessments. Soc Biol 1992;39:170–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  164. Swennen GRJ, Mommaerts MY, Abeloos J, De Clercq C,Lamoral P, Neyt N, Casselman J, Schutyser F. A cone-beam CT based technique to augment the 3D virtual skull model with a detailed dental surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:48–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Swennen GRJ, Mollemans W, Schutyser F. Three-Dimensional Treatment Planning of Orthognathic Surgery in the Era of Virtual Imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2080–2092. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  166. Tatarunaite E, Playle R, Hood K, Shaw W, Richmond S. Facial attractiveness: A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:676–682. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Slakter MJ, Waltz KJ. A dental-facial attractiveness scale: Part II, consistency of perception. Am J Orthod 1983,83:44–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  168. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 1999;3:452–460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  169. Tjan AHL, Miller GD. The JPG. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthetic Dent 1984;51:24–28 . [Google Scholar]
  170. Trotman CA, Gross MM, Moffatt KS. Reliability of a three dimensional method for measuring facial animation: a case report. Angle Orthod 1996;66:195–198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  171. Trotman CA, Faraway JJ. Modeling facial movement: I A dynamic analysis of differences based on skeletal characteristics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:1372–1379. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  172. Trotman CA, Faraway J, Soltmann R, Hartman T, van Aalst J. Facial soft tissue dynamics before and after primary lip repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2013;50:315–322. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  173. Trotman CA. Faces in 4 dimensions: Why do we care, and why the fourth dimension? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011;140:895–899. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  174. Tucker S, Cevidanes LHS, Styner M, Kim H, Reyes M, Proffit W, et al. Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3Dimensional surgical simulations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2412–2421. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  175. Uechi J, Okayama M, Shibata T, Muguruma T, Hayashi K, Endo K, Mizoguchi I. A novel method for the 3-dimensional simulation of orthognathic surgery by using a multimodal image-fusion technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130:786–798. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  176. Vargo JK, Gladwin M, Ngan P. Association between ratings of facial attractivess and patients’ motivation for orthognathic surgery. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:63–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  177. Voracek M, Fisher ML, Rupp B, Lucas D, Fessler DM. Sex differences in relative foot length and perceived attractiveness of female feet: relationship among anthropometry, physique and preference rating. Percept Mot Skills 2007;104:1123–1138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  178. Weeden JC, Trotman CA, Faraway JJ. Three dimensional analysis of facial movement in normal adults: influence of sex and facial shape. Angle Orthod 2001;71:132–140. Erratum in: Angle Orthod 2001;71:525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Werli T, Mathis R, Hédelin G, Rothea-Gouillard C. Evaluation esthétique du profil cutané par des étudiants en arts plastiques. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 2003;37:145–157. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  180. Wirthlin J, Kau CH, English JD, Pan F, Zhou H. Comparison of facial morphologies between adult Chinese and Houstonian Caucasian populations using three-dimensional imaging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:1100–1107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  181. Xu TM, Kom EL, Liu Y, Oh HS, Lee KH, Boyd RL, Baumrind S. Facial Attractiveness: Ranking of end of treatment facial photographs by pairs of Chinese and US Orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dent Orthop 2008;134:74–84. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  182. Young JA, Critelli JW, Keith KW. Male age preferences for short term and long term mating. Sex Evol Gender 2005;7:83–93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  183. Zachrisson BU. Esthetic factors involved in anterior tooth display and the smile: vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:432–445. [Google Scholar]
  184. Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrin R, Gandia JL, Oaredes V. A study on the reproductibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) caphalometric analysis. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Buccal 2012;17:678–688. [Google Scholar]